HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Site Application & Engineering ReportENGINEERING REPORT
AND
SITE APPLICATION
FOR THE
Blue Creek Ranch
Wastewater Treatment Faci ! ity
Garfield County
Applicant:
Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC
c/o Robert Cumming, Jr.
""[t"t?:,::n35"t?3r.Phone: (970) 704-1165
Prepared By:
Zancanella & Associates, lnc.
P.O. Box 1908
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
(e70) 945-5700
Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. #20481
TABLE OF GONTENTS
ENGINEERING REPORT
TNTRODUCTION ..Pagel
PLANT SITE AND SERVICE AREA . . Page 1
ALTERNATIVES ..Page2
Offsite Page 2
On-Site ....Page4
PROPOSED FACILITY . . Page 4
Estimated Project Gosts Page 4
Anticipated Flows Page 4
EffluentLimitations... .Page5
lnstructions, Equipment Operation & Maintenance . . . Page 5
Operation & Maintenance Requirements . . Page 5
Schedule ...Page6
MANAGEMENT ...Page6Agency .... Page 6
Operator ...Page7
Finances ...Page7
APPLICATION FORSITEAPPROVAL... .. PageS
New Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant . . . . Page 9
Lift Stations and lnterceptor Sewers . . . . Page 11
SITE APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS Page 15
Figure I - 5 Mile Radius Map . Page 15
Figure 2 - 1 Mile Radius Map . Page 16
Wells Located within a 1-Mile Radius . . . Page 17
Figure 4 - Flood Plain Map . . Page 18
Preliminary Effluent Limits Letter . . Page 19
Authority Letter . Page 20
REPORTATTACHMENTS .... Page2l
Table 1 - Blue Creek Ranch Water Requirements . . . . Page 21
Table 2 - Development Schedule ..Page?2
Figure3-WWTPLocation Map !.. i...... ... Page23
Table 3 - Wastewater System Operation and Maintenance Budget (Est.).Page 24
APPENDICES ...Page2s
Appendix A - Manufacturer and Equipment lnformation . . . Page 25
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
!NTRODUCTION
Blue Creek Ranch is an 82 acre tract located in the center portion of Section 31, Township 7
South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. as shown on the 1-Mile map, (See Application
Attachmenl2 - Figure 2). The subject property is located generally south and east of the
Catherine Store lntersection on County Road 100. The existing Ranch currently consists of
two homes and several buildings associated with the ranching industry. Water service is
provided by a well and wastewater is served by septic tanks and leach fields. Blue Creek Land
Holdings, LLC acquired the property and proposes to build approximately 40 single family units
and six affordable housing units on the property. A portion of the existing pasture on the
property may be used for a tree farm and horse boarding. The remainder of the property will
be left in its natural state.
The proposed 40 residential units and tree farm/horse boarding development will result in an
estimated 52 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of water demand. A lift station and
Recirculating Filter System (RFS) providing for 0.02 MGD of treatment is proposed for the
development. This facility will discharge to the Roaring Fork River.
PLANT SITE AND SERVICE AREA
The proposed lift station and RFS plant will serve the proposed development within the Blue
Creek Ranch property as described in Site Application Attachment 6, Exhibit 'A'. The
proposed development will consist of a mixture of Affordable, Free Market and Luxury single
family homes and up to 10,000 sq.ft. of tree farm/nursery irrigation. The resultant water
demand for the development equals 52 EQRs. Currently, the breakdown of the EQRs is as
follows; five associated with the Affordable Units, 45 with the Free Market Units, and two for
the tree farm/nursery. The breakdown of EQRs may change as development plans proceed.
A detailed breakdown of the water requirements is presented on the attached Tablel .
The lift station and plant will be located on the property near the proposed southern entrance
and County Road 100, see Figure 3 attached to this report. This location allows for the
minimum 100' setback between the plant and habitable buildings. Access to the site will be
Page 1
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
alongashortsectionoftheproposedtrailalongCountyRd. l00,facilitatingeaseof accessand
minimizing any inconveniences to residents during operation and maintenance. The plant and
lift station will be built in a single phase. The effluent from the plant will be piped to a discharge
point on the Roaring Fork River near the County Road 100 Bridge. The location of the
proposed wastewater plant and lift station in relation to other water and wastewater plants can
be seen on Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the attached Site Application.
The proposed lift station and wastewater treatment facility is not located within the 10O-year
flood plain and there are no other natural hazards that threaten the facility. We have included
the FEMAATea Flood Plain Map and the Preliminary GeotechnicalStudy by HPGeotech. (See
Application Attachment 4)
ALTERNATIVES
Offsite
There is currently no facility in place to provide wastewater treatment for the proposed
development identified in this report. The existing ranch house and buildings are currently
served by an on-site septic systems. Blue Creek Ranch is not located in the service area of
an existing wastewater provider or 201 plan. Blue Creek Ranch is not within the revised
Planning Areas (#1 or #2) of the Town of Carbondale's updated 201 facility plan. The Town
of Carbondale is nearly 17,000 feet away and there is no practical way to serve the Blue Creek
Ranch Subdivision. The Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finnbar Farms, and Aspen Equestrian
Estates are currently served by an existing plant located at The Ranch at Roaring Fork. Blue
Creek Ranch is not within the Ranch at Roaring Fork's approved service area.
The applicant has analyzed opportunities for consolidation with area treatment works and has
determined that consolidation is not feasible. lt is initially noted that the approved water quality
management plan (NWCOG 208 plan) does not recommend consolidation of Blue Creek
Ranch with the Ranch at Roaring Fork or other provider.
The applicant has had discussions with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (MVMD). MVMD's
Page 2
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
treatment plant is located overthree miles upstream of Blue Creek Ranch. ln 1998/1999,
MVMD attempted to expand its service area to serve the mid-valley area down to the Town of
Carbondale boundaries, however, the service area expansion was rejected by Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners. MVMD has clearly expressed no interest in attempting
another service area expansion to included Blue Creek Ranch and thus, is not offering service
to the applicant.
The applicant has had discussions with representatives of the Ranch at Roaring Fork (RRF).
Consolidation with RRF is deemed not to be a feasible alternative. The existing plant is
permitted for 1 00,000 gallons/day of hydraulic loading and 1 50 lbs BOD. The current dedicated
demands to their system are as follows: 45,000 gpd for existing uses at RRF, 7,500 gpd for
planned single family homes at RRF, 5,000 gpd for St. Finnbar Farms, 14,000 gpd for Aspen
Equestrian Estates, and 1O,OOO gpd safety factor due to variable amounts of infiltration. The
total dedicated demands on the existing plant is approximately 81,500 gpd. The proposed
design flow projection for Blue Creek Ranch is 19,110 gpd. The combined demand would be
approximately 100,610 gpd exceeding 95% the existing plant's capacity by nearly 6,000 gpd.
To meet additional demand the second Phase of the RRF facility would need to be built.
Phase ll expansion would consist of the addition of an additional aeration basin and digester.
The RRF has stated they would charge no less than $7500.00 per EQR, and likely more, to
provide service to Blue Creek Ranch. The applicant would also need to pay for easement and
acquisition and line sharing with two downstream neighbors;Aspen Equestrian Estates and St.
Finnbar. Discussions with these entities indicate the up-front costs for these rights would be
$2oo,ooo. Therefore, consolidation with RRF would cost a minimum of $600,000, greatly
exceeding the $250,000 estimate for the proposed on-site lift station and RFS. As such, the
cost of consolidation with the Ranch at Roaring Fork is 24Oo/o more costly than the on-site
alternatives and therefore, not feasible from an economic analysis.
ln addition , a 314 majority of the RRF Homeowners is required for the acceptance of any
additional sewage flows to the plant. In the past the Homeowners have demonstrated a
Page 3
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
reluctance to provide any additional connections and rarely do more than 50-60% of the
Homeowners ever turn out to vote. The existing covenants are written such that a non-voting
member is considered a "no" vote. Therefore, the applicant believes there may be
insurmountable "legal constraints" to extending service to this area at this time.
On-Site
Various on-site alternatives were evaluated for this project which include:
1. Design and construction lndividual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS).
2. Design and construction of a Aerated Lagoon System.
3. Design and construction of an AeroMod System by Meurer Research, lnc.
These alternatives were dismissed due to cost constraints, and operational and maintenance
costs.
PROPOSED FACILITY
The proposed system will consist of single or clustered septic tanks for solids removal, a gravity
sewer will convey the tank effluent to a lift station which will pump to the treatment facility. The
Recirculating Filter System (RFS), in our opinion, is the best solution to serve the Blue Creek
Ranch's needs. We are currently proposing a plant capacity of 0.02 MGD, with a dual RFS to
serve the needs of the Blue Creek Ranch development. Blue Creek Ranch will have an
estimated flow rate of approximately 12,740 gpd. The effluentwill be discharged to the Roaring
Fork River near the County Road 100 bridge. This report contains the proposed treatment
facility layout and details required for site application submittal. Manufacturer's product
information and drawings have been included in Appendix A.
Estimated Project Costs
The total estimated cost forthe construction of the lift station and RFS would be $250,000.00.
Application Attachment appendix A includes estimated costs for the RFS.
Anticipated Flows
Forty single family units and tree farm and horse boarding operations are intended to be served
Page 4
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
by this facility. The single family units will account for a total of 50 EQRs and the other uses
will account for two EQRs. Using the average daily flow of 70 gpcd, from CDPHE Policy 96-1,
with 3.5 persons per EQR, the estimated average flow for this facility would be 12,740 GPD.
lncluding a safety factor of 1.5 the maximum design flow would be 19,1 10 gallons/day or 0.02
MGD. At full build-out the hydraulic loading and organic loading are contemplated to be 0.02
MGD and 50 lbs/day, respectively.
Effluent Limitations
The Roaring Fork River in the vicinity of the proposed wastewatertreatmentfacility, is classified
for the following uses:
1. Aquatic Life, Cold 1
2. Recreation 1
3. Water Supply
4. Agriculture
To protect these uses, the Colorado Department of Health will determine a set of standards to
appty to the proposed Blue Creek Ranch Treatment Facilities. Preliminary Effluent Limitations
for the proposed treatment facility have been received from Ms. Karen Young, Colorado
Department of Health and Environment, Colorado Water Quality Control Division. A copy of
the Preliminary Effluent Limits, can be found in Application Attachment 5.
lnstructions. Equipment Operation & Maintenance
Complete manuals and instructions for the operation and maintenance of all mechanical
equipment for the treatment facility will be furnished by the individual equipment providers
(Church & Associates, lnc., et al.) and stored within the facility. Adequate tools, training and
technical assistance will also be provided by the contractor's representative to the operator and
management agency representative.
Operation & Maintenance Requirements
Safety
Proper precautions shall be taken by the operator to avoid suffocation, exposure to infectious
June 2001
Page 5
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
diseases, electrical, mechanical, and chemical accidents.
General
The operator shall:
1. Have current Class D Wastewater and Class 1 Collections Certifications;
2. Check the operating conditions of the facility;
3. Make appropriate adjustments;
4. Perform other corrective measures and preventative maintenance as needed;
5. Document in writing all observations, changes, and adjustments made to the
facility; and
6. Complete and submit required monitoring reports as required by Federal, State,
and local regulatory agencies.
7. lnspect all solid collection tanks on an annual basis and schedule removal as
necessary by a licenced contractor.
The staffing requirement for the facility is estimated at one operator checking on the facility two
times a week.
Schedule
Table 2 presents an estimated development schedule for Blue Creek Ranch Lift Station and
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
MANAGEMENT
Agencv
Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC shall assume management responsibility of the treatment
facility until such time as the Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Association has been formed.
Their address and telephone number is:
Mr. Robert Cumming, Jr.
c/o Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC
19351 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 704-1165
Page 6
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
Operator
A State Certified Operatorwill be responsible forthe operation and maintenance of the facility.
A contract will be negotiated and entered into with a qualifled operator upon completion of the
facility.
Finances
The initialfacilities construction will be funded by Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC. Operation
and maintenance costs will be assessed by the Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Association
through fees collected from occupants of the development. The anticipated fees for the
operation and maintenance of the facilities is $40.73lEQR/month, see Table 3 attached to this
report for further details. These assessments and fees will be included in the Covenants for
the subdivision and will be submitted with the final facility drawings for CDPHE review.
Page 7
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
SITE
APPLICATION
Part 1 - Application for Site Approval For Construction of: A New Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Parl2 - Application for Site Approval For Construction of Expansion of: Lift Stations
and Interceptor Sewers.
Page 8
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246-1530
PART 1 - APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUGTION OF:
A NEW DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATME}IT PLANT
Applicants Name and Address:
Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision
c/o Robert Cumminq. Jr.
Blue Creek Land Holdinqs. LLC
19351 Hiqhwav 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 945-1165
Consulting Enginee/s Name and Address:
Zancanella & Associates. lnc
P.O. Box 1908
Glenwood Sorinqs, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-5700
A) Summarv of lnformation Reqardinq new Sewaqe Treatment Plant:
1. Proposed Location: (LegalDescription) NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 31
Twp. 75 Rng. 87W
Garfield County
2. Type and capacity of Treatment Facility Proposed:
Processes Used: Recirculating Filter System (RFS)
Hydraulic: 0.02 MGD Organic: 50 lbs. BOD" / Day
Present PE: 0 Design PE: 182
%Domestic: 100 %lndustrial: 0
Page 9
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
3. Location of FacilitY:
Attach a map of the area which includes the following:
(a) S-Mile Radius: All Sewage Treatment Plants, Lift Stations, and Domestic Water
Supply lntakes. (See Application Attachment 1)
(b) 1-Mile Radius: Habitable Buildings, Location of Potable Water Wells, and an
Approximate lndication of Topography. (see Application Attachments 2 & 3)
4. Effluent Disposal:
Surface discharge to watercourse: Roarinq Fork River
State water quality classification of receiving watercourse:
Aquatic Life, Cold 1, Recreation 1, Water Supplv. Aqriculture
Subsurface: nla Land: n/a
Evaooration'. nla Other: nla
Proposed Effluent Limitations developed in conjunction with Planning and Standards Section, WQCD:
Awaiting response from CDPHE on Preliminary Effluent Limitations (see Application Attachment 5)
BOD': 45130 TSS: 45130
Fecal coliform: 12.000/6.000 Total Residual chlorine: 0.5
Ammonia: nla Other: nla
S. Will a state or federal grant be sought to finance any portion of this project? No
6. Present Zoning of the site area: Aqriculture/Residential/Rural/Density
Zoning within a 1 mile radius of site: Residential, Aqricultural. PUD, Commercial
T. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake?
Aoproximatelv 17 Miles
Name of Supply: Glenwood Sprinqs Pumo Station
Address of Supply: 401 W 7, Glenwood Sprinqs, CO 81601
\Mat is the distance downstream from the nearest point of diversion?: 1700 feet
Name of User: Ranch at Roarinq Fork
Address of User: 14913 Hwv 82. Carbondale. CO 81623
8. \Mro has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility?: Blue Creek Ranch Home Owners
Association
9. \Mro owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed?: Blue Creek Land Holdinqs, LLC
Attach documents that create the authority for the Applicant to construct the proposed facility.
(See Application Attachment 6)
Page 10
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
11.
12.
10. Estimated Project Cost $250,000.00 (lift station and RFS)
\n71.1o is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility?
Blue creek Land Holdinqs, LLC (See Apptication ettacnment 6)
Names and Addresses of all water and/or sanitation districts within a 5 mile radius downstream of the
proposed Waste Water Treatment Facility Site:
Carbondale Sanitation District. Town of Carbondale, 76 S. 2"d Street., Carbondale, CO 81623
ls the facility in a 100 year flood plain of other natural hazard area: No
lf so, what precautions are being taken? nla
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of
Natural Resources, or other Agency?: Yes
lf so, what is that designation? Area between limits of the 100-vear flood and 500-vear flood: or
certain areas subiect to 1 O0-year floodinq with averaoe depths less than one ( 1 ) foot 9r where the
co,ntributinq drainaqe area is less than one square mile: or areas protected bv levees from the base
flood. (See Application Attachment 4)
Name of Agency: Federal Emerqencv Manaoement Aqencv - Administered bv CWCB, Bryan Hvde
Please include all additionalfactors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an
informed decision on your application for Site Approval:
This will be a new facilitv which will provide local services to the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision.
Applicants Name and Address:
Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision
c/o Robert Cumminq, Jr.
Blue Creek Land Holdinos. LLC
19351 Hiqhway 82
Carbondale. CO 81623
Phone: (970) 945-1165
Consulting Engineer's Name and Address:
Zancanella & Associates, lnc
P.O. Box 1908
Glenwood Sprinqs, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-5700
13.
OF: LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
Page 11
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
A) Summary of tnformation Reqardinq new Sewaqe Treatment Plant:
1. Proposed Location: (Legal Description) NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 31
Twp. 75 Rng. 87W
Garfield County
2. Type and capacity of facility proposed: Lift Station & Force Main X lnterceptor Sewer
Average Hydraulic: 13,000 gal/day Peak Hydraulic:20,000 gal/day
Organic: 50 lbs. BODu/day
Present PE: 0 Design PE: 182 % Domestic: 100 o/o lndustrial: 0
3. Location of FacilitY:
Attach a map of the area, which includes the following:
1-mile radius: habitable buildings, topography, and neighboring land uses.
(See Application Attachments 2 & 3)
4. Will a State or Federal granUloan be sought to finance any portion of this project? No
5. Present zoning of site area? Aqricultural, Residential, Rural, Density
Zoning within a 1-mile radius of site? Residential, Aqricultural. PUD. Commercial
6. \Mat entity has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners
Association.
7. \A/ho owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? Blue Creek Land Holdinqs, LLC.
(See Application Attachment 6)
8. Estimated project cost $250,000 (Lift station and RFS)
\r1/1,ro is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? Blue Creek Land
Holdinqs, LLC. (See Application Attachment 6)
9. ls the facility in a 1O0-year flood plain or other natural hazard area? No
lf so, what precautions are being taken? n/a
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of
Natural Resources or other agency? Yes
Federal Emerqencv Manaqement Aqency - Administered bv CWCB, Brvan Hvde
(Agency Name)
lf so, what is that designation? Area between limits of the 10O-vear flood and 500-vear flood: or
certain areas subiect to 100-vear floodinq with averaoe depths less than one (1) foot or where the
contributing drainaqe area is less than one square mile: or areas orotected bv levees from the base
flood. (See Application Attachment 4)
Page 12
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
11.
10. Please include any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an
informed decision on your application for site approval'
This will be a new facilitv which will orovide local services to the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision in
coniunction with the RFS proposed in Part 1 of this application.
The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will generate the following
additional load:
Peak Hydraulic (MGD): 0.02 P.E. to be served: 182
There will be no additional loading of the wastewater plant since this lift station is part of the waste
treatment system. '
Describe emergency system in case of lift station and/or power failure. The lift station will be desiqned
with additionalcapacitv to store up to 1 dav of normal flows.
Name and address of wastewater treatment plant providing treatment: Same as Apolicant
The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will increase the loading of the
treatment plant to 100 % of hydraulic and 100 % of organic capacity and Blue Creek Ranch
Homeowners Association agrees to treat this wastewater?-L Yes - No
Federal or State Ownership or Manaoement:
lf the Facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a Federal or State
Agency, send the Agency a copy of this Application. n/a
12.
13.
14.
B)
Page 13
Site Application June 2001
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
C) RecommendationofGovernmentalAuthorities:
please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities
consistent with the Compreliensive Plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 Facility
plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? lf you have any further
comments or questions, please call 320-8333, extension 5272.
, r/, ,(
DATE RECOMMEND
APPROVAL
RECOMMEND
DISAPPROVAL
NO
COMMENT
SIGNATURE OF
REPRESENTATIVE
,
LLCCreek
2.
Local Government:
Town of Carbondale
3.
Sanitation District:
Cadcondale Sanitation District
4.
5.
Sanitation District:
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Garfield Co. Board of Commissioners
6.
Garfield Co. Health Authority
7.
8.
Garfield Co. Planning Authority
NWCOG
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications Process", and
have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An Engineering Report, as described by
regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed.
Applicant Signature:
Applicant Name:
Page 14
(Typed)
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
T
I
T
t
T
I
I
I
I
ENGINEERING REPORT
AND
SITE APPLICATION
FOR THE
' Blue Creek Ranch
Wastewater Treatment Faci lity
Garfield County
Applicant:
Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC
c/o Robert Cumming, Jr.
19351 Highway 82
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone: (970) 704-1 165
Prepared By:
Zancanella & Associates, lnc.
P.O. Box 1908
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
(970) 945-5700
RECEI\{ED
JUN I 3 2r,0t
GAREIEGLPNSSRUNry
Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. #20481
T
I
T
I
T
I
t
T
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENGINEERING REPORT
lNTRoDUcrloN " Page l
PLANT SITE AND SERVICE AREA . . PAgE 1
ALTERNATIVES ..Page2
Offsite i.... Page2
On-Site ....Page4
PROPOSED FACILITY . . Page 4
Estimated Project Costs Page 4
Anticipated Flows Page 4
EffluentLimitations... .Page5
lnstructions, Equipment Operation & Maintenance . . . Page 5
Operation & Maintenance Requirements . . Page 5
Schedule ...Page6
MANAGEMENT ...Page6
Agency .... Page 6
Operator ...Page7
Finances ...Page7
APPLICATION FORSITEAPPROVAL... .. PageS
New Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant . . . . Page 9
Lift Stations and Interceptor Sewers . . . . Page 11
SITE APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS PAgC 15
Figure 1 - 5 Mile Radius Map . Page 15
Figure 2 - 1 Mile Radius Map . Page 16
Wells Located within a 1-Mile Radius . . . Page 17
Figure 4 - Flood Plain Map . . Page 18
Preliminary Geotechnical Study ' . . Page 18
Preliminary Effluent Limits Letter . . Page 19
Authority Letter . Page 20
REPORTATTACHMENTS .... PAgE21
Table 1 - Blue Creek Ranch Water Requirements . . . . Page 21
Table 2 - DevelopmentSchedule . -Page22
Figure3-WWTP Location Map ... Page23
Table 3 - Wastewater System Operation and Maintenance Budget (Est.).Page 24
APPENDICES ...Page25
Appendix A - Manufacturer and Equipment Information . . . Page 25
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
INTRODUCTION
Blue Creek Ranch is an 82 acre tract located in the center portion of Section 31, Township 7
South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. as shown on the 1-Mile map, (See Application
Attachment 2 - Figure 2). The subject property is located generally south and east of the
Catherine Store lntersection on County Road 100. The existing Ranch currently consists of
two homes and several buildings associated with the ranching industry. Water service is
provided by a well and wastewater is served by septic tanks and leach fields. Blue Creek Land
Holdings, LLC acquiredthe property and proposes to build approximately 40 single family units
and six affordable housing units on the property. A porlion of the existing pasture on the
property may be used for a tree farm and horse boarding. The remainder of the property will
be left in its natural state.
The proposed 40 residential units and tree farm/horse boarding development will result in an
estimated 52 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of water demand. A lift station and
Recirculating Filter System (RFS) providing for 0.02 MGD of treatment is proposed for the
development. This facility will discharge to the Roaring Fork River.
PLANT SITE AND SERVICE AREA
The proposed lift station and RFS plant will serve the proposed development within the Blue
Creek Ranch property as described in Site Application Attachment 6, Exhibit "A". The
proposed development will consist of a mixture of Affordable, Free Market and Luxury single
family homes and up to 10,000 sq.ft. of tree farm/nursery irrigation. The resultant water
demand for the development equals 52 EQRs. Currently, the breakdown of the EQRs is as
follows; five associated with the Affordable Units, 45 with the Free Market Units, and two for
the tree farm/nursery The breakdown of EQRs may change as development plans proceed.
A detailed breakdown of the water requirements is presented on the attached Tablel.
The lift station and plant will be located on the property near the proposed southern entrance
and County Road 100, see Figure 3 attached to this report. This location allows for the
minimum 100' setback between the plant and habitable buildings. Access to the site will be
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
Engineering RePort
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
alongashortsectionoftheproposedtrailalongCountyRd. l00,facilitatingeaseof accessand
minimizing any inconveniences to residents during operation and maintenance. The plant and
lift station will be built in a single phase. The effluent from the plant will be piped to a discharge
point on the Roaring Fork River near the County Road 100 Bridge. The location of the
proposed wastewater plant and lift station in relation to other water and wastewater plants can
be seen on Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the attached Site Application.
The proposed lift station and wastewater treatment facility is not located within the 10o-year
flood plain and there are no other natural hazards that threaten the facility. We have included
the FEMAATea Flood plain Map and the Preliminary Geotechnicalstudy by HPGeotech. (See
Application Attachment 4)
ALTERNATIVES
Offsite
There is currenly no facility in place to provide wastewater treatment for the proposed
development identified in this report. The existing ranch house and buildings are currently
served by an on-site septic systems. Blue Creek Ranch is not located in the service area of
an existing wastewater provider or 201 plan. Blue Creek Ranch is not within the revised
planning Areas (#1 or #2) of the Town of Carbondale's updated 201 facility plan. The Town
of Carbondale is nearly 17,000 feet away and there is no practical way to serve the Blue Creek
Ranch Subdivision. The Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finnbar Farms, and Aspen Equestrian
Estates are currently served by an existing plant located at The Ranch at Roaring Fork. Blue
Creek Ranch is not within the Ranch at Roaring Fork's approved service area.
The applicant has analyzed opportunities for consolidation with area treatment works and has
determined that consolidation is not feasible. lt is initially noted that the approved water quality
management plan (NWCOG 208 plan) does not recommend consolidation of Blue Creek
Ranch with the Ranch at Roaring Fork or other provider.
The applicant has had discussions with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (MVMD). MVMD's
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
t
T
I
I
I
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
treatment plant is located overthree miles upstream of Blue Creek Ranch. ln 1998/1999,
MVMD attempted to expand its service area to serve the mid-valley area down to the Town of
Carbondale boundaries, however, the service area expansion was rejected by Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners. MVMD has clearly expressed no interest in attempting
another service area expansion to included Blue Creek Ranch and thus, is not offering service
to the applicant.
The applicant has had discussions with representatives of the Ranch at Roaring Fork (RRF).
Consolidation with RRF is deemed not to be a feasible alternative. The existing plant is
permitted for 100,000 gallons/day of hydraulic loading and 150 lbs BOD. The current dedicated
demands to their system are as follows: 45,000 gpd for existing uses at RRF, 7,500 gpd for
planned single family homes at RRF, 5,000 gpd for St. Finnbar Farms, 14,000 gpd for Aspen
Equestrian Estates, and 10,000 gpd safety factor due to variable amounts of infiltration. The
total dedicated demands on the existing plant is approximately 81,500 gpd. The proposed
design flow projection for Blue Creek Ranch is 19,110 gpd. The combined demand would be
approximately 100,610 gpd exceeding 95% the existing plant's capacity by nearly 6,000 gpd.
To meet additional demand the second Phase of the RRF facility would need to be built.
Phase ll expansion would consist of the addition of an additional aeration basin and digester.
The RRF has stated they would charge no less than $7500.00 per EQR, and likely more, to
provide service to Blue Creek Ranch. The applicant would also need to pay for easement and
acquisition and line sharing with two downstream neighbors;Aspen Equestrian Estates and St.
Finnbar. Discussions with these entities indicate the up-front costs for these rights would be
$200,000. Therefore, consolidation with RRF would cost a minimum of $600,000, greatly
exceeding the $250,000 estimate for the proposed on-site lift station and RFS. As such, the
cost of consolidation with the Ranch at Roaring Fork is 240% more costly than the on-site
alternatives and therefore, not feasible from an economic analysis.
ln addition, a 314 majority of the RRF Homeowners is required for the acceptance of any
additional sewage flows to the plant. ln the past the Homeowners have demonstrated a
Page 3
I
I
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
reluctance to provide any additional connections and rarely do more than 50-60% of the
I Homeowners ever turn out to vote. The existing covenants are written such that a non-voting
member is considered a "r'lo" vote. Therefore, the applicant believes there may be
I insurmountable "legal constraints" to extending service to this area at this time.
I on-site
Various on-site alternatives were evaluated for this project which include:
I 1. Design and construction lndividual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS).
2. Design and construction of a Aerated Lagoon System.
I 3. Design and construction of an AeroMod System by Meurer Research, lnc.
These alternatives were dismissed due to cost constraints, and operational and maintenance
I costs
I PRoPosEp FAcrLrrY
I The proposed system will consist of single or clustered septic tanks for solids removal, a gravity
f sewer will convey the tank effluent to a lift station which will pump to the treatment facility. The
I Recirculating Filter System (RFS), in our opinion, is the best solution to serve the Blue Creek
I Ranch's needs. We are currently proposing a plant capacity of 0.02 MGD, with a dual RFS to
I serve the needs of the Blue Creek Ranch development. Blue Creek Ranch will have an
I estimated flow rate of approximately 12,740gpd. The effluentwill be discharged to the Roaring
I Fork River nearthe County Road'100 bridge. This report contains the proposed treatment
r facility layout and details required for site application submittal. Manufacturer's product
I
information and drawings have been included in Appendix A.
I Estimated Project CostsI ff'.r" totrf estimated cost for the construction of the lift station and RFS would be $250,000.00.
I Application Attachment appendix A includes estimated costs for the RFS.
I Anticipated FlowsI
Forty singlefamily units and tree farm and horse boarding operations are intended to be served
I
I
Page 4
T
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
by this facility. The single family units will account for a total of 50 EQRs and the other uses
will account for two EQRs. Using the average daily ttow ofd gPcd, from CDPHE Policy 96-1 ,
with 3.5 persons per EQR, the estimated average flow for this facility would be 12,740 GPD.
lncluding a safety factor of 1 .5 the maximum design flow would be 19,1 10 gallons/day or 0.02
MGD. At full build-out the hydraulic loading and organic loading are contemplated to be 0.02
MGD and 50 lbs/day, respectively.
Effluent Limitations
The Roaring Fork River in the vicinity of the proposed wastewatertreatment facility, is classified
for the following uses.
1. Aquatic Life, Cold 1
2. Recreation 1
3. Water Supply
4. Agriculture
To protect these uses, the Colorado Department of Health will determine a set of standards to
apply to the proposed Blue Creek Ranch Treatment Facilities. Preliminary Effluent Limitations
for the proposed treatment facility have been received from Ms. Karen Young, Colorado
Department of Health and Environment, Colorado Water Quality Control Division. A copy of
the Preliminary Effluent Limits, can be found in Application Attachment 5.
I nstructions. Equ i pment Operation & Maintenance
Complete manuals and instructions for the operation and maintenance of all mechanical
equipment for the treatment facility will be furnished by the individual equipment providers
(Church & Associates, lnc., et al.) and stored within the facility. Adequate tools, training and
technical assistance will also be provided by the contractor's representative to the operator and
management agency representative.
Operation & Maintenance Requirements
Safety
Proper precautions shall be taken by the operator to avoid suffocation, exposure to infectious
Page 5
T
I
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
diseases, electrical, mechanical, and chemical accidents.
t General
The operator shall:
I
I
I
I
I
1. Have current Class D Wastewater and Class 1 Collections Certifications;
2. Check the operating conditions of the facility;
3. Make appropriate adjustments;
4. Perform other corrective measures and preventative maintenance as needed;
5. Document in writing all observations, changes, and adjustments made to the
facility; and
6. Complete and submit required monitoring reports as required by Federal, State,
and local regulatory agencies.
7. lnspect all solid collection tanks on an annual basis and schedule removal as
I rhe starrin, ;::,::::,:ffii1il:J ::Iil,"io ,, one operator checkins on the racirity two
times a week.
T
I Schedule
I Table 2 presents an estimated development schedule for Blue Creek Ranch Lift Station and
I
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
I MANAGEMENTI ^**I Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC shall assume management responsibility of the treatment
t facility until such time as the Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Association has been formed.
I Their address and telephone number is:
Mr. Robert Cumming, Jr.
I c/o Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC
19351 Highway 82
I Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 704-1165
T
I
Page 6
L
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
T
I
T
I
I
t
I
Engineering Report
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
June 2001
Operator
A State Certified Operator will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility.
A contract will be negotiated and entered into with a qualified operator upon completion of the
facility.
Finances
The initialfacilities construction will be funded by Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC. Operation
and maintenance costs will be assessed by the Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Association
through fees collected from occupants of the development. The anticipated fees for the
operation and maintenance of the facilities is $40.73lEQR/month, see Table 3 attached to this
report for further details. These assessments anO/tees will be included in the Covenants for
the subdivision and will be submitted with the findi facility drawings for CDPHE review.
l:^4" l*"'-
Page 7
June 2001Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
SITE
APPLICATION
part 1 - Application for Site Approvat For Construction of: A New Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
part2 - Application for Site Approvat For Construction of Expansion of: Lift Stations
and lntercePtor Sewers.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
Page 8
I
I Bii""TB:?l!o,Ln w,.t"*,t",
June 2001
t
t
t
I
I Colorado Department of HealthI Water Quaiity Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive Southr Denver. CO 80246-1530I
I paRr r - AppLtcATtoN FoR StrE AppRovAL FoR coNSTRUCTtoN oF:
A NEW DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Applicants ru"re and Address:
Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision
c/o Robert Cummino. Jr.
Blue Creek Land Holdinqs, LLC
19351 Hiqhwav 82
Carbondale. CO 81623
Phone: (970) 945-'1165
I Consulting Engineer's Name and Address:
f Zancanella & Associates, lnct ;ffi
Phone: (970) 945-5700
I A) Summarv of lnformation Resardinq new Sewaqe Treatment Plant:
t 1. Proposed Location: (Legal Description) ---NW- 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 31,d$#.Jns B7w
I 2. Type and capacity of Treatment Facility Proposed:
I Processes Used: Recirculatinq Filter Svstem (RFS)
I Hydraulic: 0.02 MGD Organic: 50 lbs. BOD" / Dav
I iJS:iliff.# 7,ii,',i'l5ir*---'-
I
I
I
Page 9
t
I 3if"TB:?llo,lcn wa,te*at",
June 2001
I
I
I
3. Location of FacilitY:
Attach a map of the area which includes the following:
I
4 Effluent
].l.j;t:. r.harse to watercourse Roarinq Fork River
I State water quality classification of receiving watercourse:
I Aquatic Life, Cold 1, Recreation 1, Water Supplv, Aqriculture
(a) S-Mile Radius: All Sewage Treatment Plants, Lift Stations, and Domestic Water
Supply lntakes. (See Application Attachment 1)
(b) 1-Mile Radius: Habitable Buildings, Location of Potable Water Wells, and an
Approximate lndication of Topography. (see Application Attachments 2 & 3)
T
I
t
Subsurface: nla Land: n/a
Evaporation'. nla Other: nla
Proposed Effluent Limitations developed in conjunction with Planning and Standards Section, WQCD:
Awaiting response from CDPHE on Preliminary Effluent Limitations (see Application Attachment 5)
BOD.. 45130
FecalColiform: 12,000/6,000
Ammonia: nla
TSS: 45130
Total Residual Chlorine: 0.5
Other: nla
I 5. Wilt a state or federal grant be sought to finance any portion of this project? No
a 6. Present Zoning of the site area: Aqriculture/Residential/Rural/Densitv
I Zoning within a 1 mile radius of site: Residential, Aqricultural, PUD, Commercial
- 7. \r'/hat is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake?
I Approximatelv'17 Miles
Name of Supply: Glenwood Sprinqs Pump Station
I Address of Supply: 401 W 7, Glenwood Sprinqs, CO 81601
What is the distance downstream from the nearest point of diversion?: '1700 feet
I Name of User: Ranch at Roarinq Fork
Address of User: 14913 Hwv 82, Carbondale, CO 81623
I 8. V/ho has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility?: Blue Creek Ranch Home Owners
Association
I 9. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed?: Blue Creek Land Holdinqs, LLCr Attach documents that create the authority for the Applicant to construct the proposed facility.
(See Application Attachment 6)
T Page '10
I
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
10. Estimated Project Cost: $250,000.00 (lift station and RFS)
\Mro is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility?
Blue creek Land Holdinos, LLC (See Roptication nttacnment 6)
11.Names and Addresses of all water and/or sanitation districts within a 5 mile radius downstream of the
proposed Waste Water Treatment Facility Site:
Carbondale Sanitation District, Town of Carbondale, 76 S. 2'd Street., Carbondale, CO 81623
12. ls the facility in a 1 00 year flood plain of other natural hazard area: No
lf so, what precautions are being taken? nla
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of
Natural Resources, or other Agency?: Yes
lf so, what is that designation? Area between limits of the 10O-vear flood and 500-vear floodl gr
certain areas subiect to 10O-vear floodinq with averaqe deoths less than one (1) foot or where the
carntribrutrnq dral e area is less than one square mile, or areas protected bv levees from the base
flood. (See Application Attachment 4)
Name of Agency: Federal Emeroencv Manaqement Aoencv - Administered bv CWCB, Brvan Hvde
13. Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an
informed decision on your application for Site Approval:
This will be a new facilitv which will orovide local services to the Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision.
OF: LIFT STATIONS AND INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
Applicants Name and Address:
Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision
c/o Robert CumminS Jr.
Blue Creek Land Holdinqs, LLC
19351 Hiqhwav 82
Carbondale. CO 81623
Phone: (970) 945-'1165
Consultrng Engineer's Name and Address:
Zancanella & Associates, lnc
P.O. Box 1908
Glenwood Sprinqs. CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-5700
Page 1 1
I
I Bif.t3:'fllTn wast"*ate,
June 2001
I A1 Summary of lnformation Reqardinq new Sewaqe Treatment Plant:r 1. Proposed Location: (Legal Description) NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 31
I ',I$#k.Ins 87w
2. Type and capacity of facility proposed: Lift Station & Force Main X lnterceptor Sewer
t Average Hydraulic: '13,000 gal/day Peak Hydraulic: 20,000 gal/day
r Organic: 50 lbs. BODu/daY
I present PE: 0 ' Design PE: 182 % Domestic: 100 % lndustrial: 0
t 3
hi:XlT ffi'lH; area, which incrudes the roilowins:
1-mile radius: habitable buildings, topography, and neighboring land uses.
I
(See Application Attachments 2 & 3)
4. Wll a State or Federal granUloan be sought to finance any portion of this project? No
I 5. Present zoning of site area? Aqricultural. Residential, Rural, Densitv
Zoning within a 1-mile radius of site? Residential, Aoricultural, PUD. Commercial
I 6.
ffitras
the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners
I 7. \Nho owns the land upon which the facilitv will be constructed? Blue Creek Land Holdinqs. LLC.
I (See Application Attachment 6)
- 8. Estimated project cost: $250,000 (Lift station and RFS)
I Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? Blue Creek Land
HoldEgS-lLE- (See Application Attachment 6)
I 9. tstnefacitityina 100-yearfloodplainorothernaturalhazardarea? No
lf so, what precautions are being taken? n/a
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of
Natural Resources or other agency? Yes
Federal Emeroencv Manaqement Aqencv - Administered bv CWCB, Bryan Hvde
(Agency Name)
lf so, what is that designation? Area between limits of the 1O0-vear flood and 500-vear flood: or
certain areas subiectto'10O-vearfloodinq with averaqe depths less than one ('1) footqrwhere the
contrrbutino drainaqe area is less than one square mile; or areas orotected bv levees from the base
flood. (See Application Attachment 4)
t
t
I
t
I
I
Page 12
T
I
I
I
l
I
t
I
I
T
I
t
I
t
T
T
I
t
I
11.
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
10. Please include any additionalfactors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an
informed decision on your application for site approval.
This will be will provide
The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will generate the following
additional load:
Peak Hydraulic (MGD): 0.02 P.E. to be served: 182
There will be no additional loading of the wastewater plant since this lift station is pali of the waste
treatment system. '
Describe emergency system in case of lift station and/or power failure. The lift station will be desiqned
with additional capacitv to store uo to '1 day of normal flows.
Name and address of wastewater treatment plant providing treatment: Same as Applicant
The proposed lift station or interceptor sewer, when fully developed, will increase the loading of the
treatment plant to 100 % of hydraulic and 100 % of organic capacity and Blue Creek Ranch
Homeowners Association agrees to treat this wastewater?-L Yes - No
Federal or State Ownership or Manaqement:
lf the Facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a Federal or State
Agency, send the Agency a copy of this Application. nia
12.
'13.
14.
B)
coniunction with the RFS proposed in Part 1 of this application.
Page 13
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
C) RecommendationofGovernmentalAuthorities:
please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 Facility
plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? lf you have any further
comments or questions, please call 320-8333, extension 5272.
DATE RECOMMEND
APPROVAL
RECOMMEND
DISAPPROVAL
NO
COMMENT
SIGNATURE OF
REPRESENTATIVE
LLC
1.
J.
Local Government:
Town of Carbondale
Sanitation Distrtct:
Carbondale Sanitation District
4.
Sanitation District:
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
tr
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
T
T
I
I
T
I
T
I
Garfield Co. Board of Commissioners
Garfield Co. Health Authority
7.
B.
Garfield Co. Planning AuthoritY
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications Process",
have fosted the site in accordance with the regulations. An Engineering Report, as described by
and
Applicant Signature:D^E Yill
Applicant Name.
Page 14
(Typed)
regulations, has been prePared enclosed.
I
I Blf"T,:t?l5,Ln waste*,t"r
t slrE APPLI.AT..N ATTA.HMENTS
Aoolication Attachment 1
I
Figure 1 - 5 Mile Radius MaP
List of Sewer Treatment Plants
I hlffi:il5ii,ater suppry we*
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
page '15
I
June 2001
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
Application Attachment 2
Figure 2 - 1 Mile Radius Map
Habitual Buildings
Location of Potable Wells
Topography
Page 16
R.88W. R.B7W.
\-:
.T.75
'--n\.'{
GURE NO.Ia
NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
BLUE CREEK RANCHWELL LOCATION
1-Mile Radius from WWTP
POSI dTrC€ 80r r90G - r0o5 @@€n Ar€ruE
'ANCAN{IIA A/UO ASSOCIA
ar[Foo sPftrcs. cq-G^oo ar6o2 (970) 945-57e
DATE:
APR|L 17, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I Blr"T.:,l"fllo,lcn wast"*ate,
June 2001
I Aoolication Attachment 3
I Wells Located within a 1-Mile Radius
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I Pase 17
I
,v()
Uf
@
oaaUUUFFF
tsFFa@aut!r!
'6AA EddUUU vvv))) UUUooo UJUU + .r*
:=: 655 111
UUU UUU NNNB*S r3: ;60
Z Z 'Hos Hs F 92=; ?; E Ai8P di : skr
g IE ear:t:,,;E ?5=EE'"i{b Szqe:??HgE :TEEEH-&A;XI . >Eilglqis 5 5q[fiiHH$porcj> 2 ZdVS;:UE=tszo@ < a;biEo<FonPe>= - k kP;E:fES:=i=: , gsg aEj;u;6o:
==q=5 F Eie P?i;jEi?oF=qg 36=.266 A ESE pruiiil_r:6X:: 3 =*E" =ta.ifB;ieE<i F EI-=g iE3ffrRs
g{qgsHEE e fi E!*$H $}HHRHEE
::H:Irtt F t- ELLEU F.-EtE.',0rrHEE=== = = ==EEE =p;===+-!!E;iftrff tr F trtrtrtr! u,.,"FFfi9E4<b<<EcL I L &cc[@ coF
zU
ozotrInoaUo
(,
U
oz
G
a)
U
B
EL(,
oo
Fz
g
utuF
ooa
)JUz
oz
N
EBfi :slEEE:gE+B$EeEEpft ft eefr EeegHH:H
==igg$bEBBBBsssR=iB638EEEEEE;3sEEiEE;;;;EE=:EEE:$EEEEEEEE-EEIEqqqq--;; o ! " " o o ci " o o d ci o o o o o o o o o o o o o
tctrEEt tu.ttEtEtEdx.trIr!qd-cfrffffifrtrfrfffr trtrtrtrfrtrsEffff-fffffr $ff$ fff6 fiffft
#HHHHHtrHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH;HHHalaia ;;;;;;;;;;;;; a;= a;;
===VYYYY:Z>YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY:(YYYYYY VYYYYYYYYYYYY YYY YYY YYY
xtrG.x.t fr t ut s.t&.aa&.aaEad444aaaae.d.t x. 44c4dd.u.t ut tEe. N.Ed (nt d.ut
roooooo:ooooo65666666000056556665 000eoo6060000 coo oco ooo
drLrrrLu4LLLruLLLuLrLuLLutiEEtrtrE'['[' liIunIrtltltiuuuu LIL rrL Luu
!,eeeee2*22e22e2ee2e2ZZZZ22222_2222 2222222222??2 ZZZ ZZ2 222:',&i'aaaaYaaaainaaaaaa7d-e4t te.8d,d,tr,4 tr,444idt tEet.i t!u r vt vatr
;PPPIPpEpHpppPPHPpPpPPpPPPPpPPPPP ePPPPpPPPPPP? P?P PPP PPp
ff 6 ; :: ; -*oro@--.P5SP
su^--^ u N,',ezeez = i i : 6 lj ^-;E 9:9:e99999999 <
E E E E a E E
g
c E i
g
i E E e r E E E E E E r E E E
g
e e i E 22ZZ??a;;?Z?1=; H a ; ; g
E E E
fr FEeEEEREEESgHhgEeeEqgE$EE;;fi $uBE&N@6ooooooo-F::::6 6 ii -icr o o v { {sS{U { + + = j AIIii:: e s t so
S ESE33E$S E
= !tNrNrsv+ sssv I
0aaoaoaaaaq@aoaU)aa@oaoaa(DaU,aaau,aaaoaaoao(Daaoaaoa@ao@aaa ts3B 3BB
tsNts@@@ @@@
aaa aa@
NNT NNN
ooo ooo
3=BBBB3BI}B=B I=B
rNFtsT TNN'@@@@d6@@@@@@@ @@@
3BE=B=BB=Bts3ts=}B=BBts}B==B=}}=B=3B
NNN@TTTTTFtstststsN@FFtsts NNNT@6 6 iD iD ii i6 6 6 @ bo bo bo ii 6 i! @ bo b bo @ @ @ o @ @ @ 6 6 @ @ @ @ 6
a a ut a a a a a o a a o o tD a a @ a a a u, a o a @ a a 6 a a @ 0 a
TNTtsNNtstsTNtsFNNtsTtsFFFTNtsFNNNTtsNFNN
aaaaa@(Da@aaaa a@a
tsNNNTtstsNFTNTN NFN
56E;55;;;5588 ;;;5g5s;;E5R55E g3sER35SR;83393339$SS&
=
2
=
2 v v v 2 2 Z 2 ==e a a z2 z 1'= rz a a e 2 e e 2 2 8 u a
# a 2 2 1 2 u y a I d I u v U t 22 v v v 2 2 -= *- -= 2 e a v 2 a
222re z z y y=.duuuyleau7u!
EEg;EEgEilEEfi EEgf, EEHBBfl BEBg;::g;gg
o
oll-.-eo@tsoo9=SP:P9:PPR&NRXRENRRgESgS 33Egg95$*+995 egB ;SB ff33
(LF
B
Eoult,o(L:oP0auG@?ooaZz<?G3
YourdUJtrEto5uJ;
JO
co1
ttfnm
ulFrO:Uzo
=Eozf
F
BoJ
-Jlfl
=
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Bii?t:'"?ll?n waste*ate,
June 2001
I Application Attachment 4
I Figure 4 - FIood Plain Map
I
Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, lnc.
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
t
I
pase 18
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
7
I
I
I
T
I
t
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
EXPLANATION Of ZONE DESIGNATIONS
ZONE EXPLAMTION
A ArcB of lo&y!.r floodi br* tls(d ll.Btiodr :^d
(lood har&d f.liots nor drtcrmin.d.
40 Sf{rl Flood }Lr.rd Arc.J nund.rd by tyilr o{
I0o.yur ih.llor floodi{ wh.il d.ptht .E bct*..n
1.0 :dd 3.0 f!c!i d.pthr.n thoenr orlre$of lo$,
year illuviJl frn floDdinB; dapthl rod wlocitierhovn,
hur oo ll()d hrlird l&tory aro dctardincd.
AH A@ of 100-ycnr tt.llow flod;o( eher! d.pthi
ilc hlrccn on. tl) sd lhrce i3l {e.ri b*. iiood
alclations rc rhsn, ut oo tl6od h:rr.d fxtm
rr. d.rdrsif,!d.
Ar-A3, Arcs of l0Gyc.r floodi hn$ llt4d elrvrlioB lnd
llood hdild fac106 drtcrmin.d.
aS Arc6 {f lQo'v.$ flood lo S prolccltd l,v flood
prok(tion sy.ten und.r .oiltr.u(taon; bAc ,lood
ala$alionr ind tlood hitrd fu(loat noi dclcrmincd.
B Arc6 bdwccn limits of ltu 100-y.:r llood eod 5110.
ycar tlood: o. (cirrin rr.a, lubiart to loo-Ycrr flood-
iry wiah rvcr4. deo6t l.$ thrn ooc (l ) fml or *hcrc
lhc contribrtint dninnq. ,E! i5 l*! Lhiln one lqu)ft
milc; or irr6 ril)arcEd by 1.v.6 Irom ihc bas( flood,
(M!di!m shadin()
C Arce of mrniorai (loodan{. (No th.dinE)
D Acd ol undrLrmin.d, bul p6siblc, flood huildr.
V /\r.s of 100.)... cor.rat fixxi virh vcl6.ity lydw
r.ircn): l,asc fkxil ckv.tio.5 rnd tl@d h&rrd ia.lod
rx)t d.brnrinod.
V1-V3O Ar.$ o, I00!..r (o6QI llood errh vrlxr:y iwrv.
acnon); barc rled alcvriions:nd {lxni hi!?rrd f*to6
derafin,nad.
!)
VifB*
LI
*rrAl
Posr oFFrc€ Box tgos - rms mre rrrir
FIGURE NO.
4
'n:Ls
_b'
xrTt0xrI r[000 ttstlsttct Pnt8tI
FIRTI
FL(lOIl IIISURI]ICE RITE IAP
CARFIELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
(UNtNcoRPoRATED ARE.TS)
PANEL I88O OF IS(,(l
{saE uap rNoEx poF raxELs NoT r.rmaor
CIlHI'Ui{ITY.PTIIEL IIUTSE R
080205 1880 I
IIAP REYISED:
JANUABY 3, I986-./
If.cdcnl Emcgqnc M.olterent .tsenc]
r/
BLUE CREEK RANCH
_ _P!ST OFFTC€ 80x t90E _ rms c@Ee A€XU€GLExloo spRrxcs, cq.oR^oo arooz 1slo1 sis_iroo
SZ5fi
Z*ruT A
T
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
T
I
r,
Hepworth- Parvlak Geotechnical. Inc.
5020 County Road l5.l'
Glenrvood Sprines. Colorado lll601
Phr-rne: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-lJ.l54
hpgeo @ hpgeotech.com
May 30, 2001
Zancatella Associates
Attn: Dan Mathes
P.O. Box i908
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 816A2 Job No. 100 601
Subject: Proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant, Blue Creek Ranch, Counry Road
100, Garfield Counry, Colorado
Dear Mr. Mathes:
Attached is a copy of our preliminar/ geotechnicai study for the proposed Blue Creek
Ranch Development, Job No. 100 601, dated September 11, 2001.
The recommendations contained in the report should be adequate for planning and
preliminary design of the proposed waste water treatment plant. We recommend that a
site specific subsoil study be performed prior to final design.
If you have any questions or if we can be of funher assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK G
Daniel E.
DEH/ksw
24443
sft"for
I
T
I
I
T
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
flepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 Countv Road 154
Glenrvood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-79E8
Fax: 970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
PRILIIVIINARY GEOTECHMCAL STUDY
PROPOSED BLI.].E CREEK RANCII SI'BDTVISION
I{IGITWAY 82 fu\D COUNTY ROAD 1OO
GARFIELD COLNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 100 601
SEPTE}IBER 11, 2OOO
PREPARED FOR:
WI}IDRTVER HOLDNGS, LLC
ATTI,I: ROBERT M. CUVIMING, JR.
19351 I{IGI{WAY 82
CARBONDALE, COLOR{DO 81623
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
SLP/ksw
ru//;*.
ImPWORTIT - PAWLAK GEOTECITIIICAL, NC.
September 11, 2000
WindRiver Holdings, LLC
Aftn: Robert M. Cumming Jr.
19351 Highway 82
Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Job No.100 601
Subject: Report Transmittal, Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed Blue
Creek Ranch Subdivision, Highway 82 and Counry Road 100, Garfield
Counry, Colorado'
Dear Mr. Cumming:
As requested, we'have conducted a preliminary geotechnical study for the proposed
residential subdivision at Blue Creek Ranch.
The properry is suitabie for the proposed. development based on geologic and
geotechnicai conditions.
Subsurface conditions encountered ia the expioratory pits excavated throughout the
properry consist of Vz to 1 foot of topsoil overlyi:rg up to 3 t/z f.eet of soft to medium stiff
i*Ay silry ciay and ioose silty clayey satrd. Below depths of.lVz to 4 feet, dense sardy
gruult with cotbtes and boulders was etrcountered. Grouudwater was rypicaily
encountered benneeu lVz arrd 4 feet in the nonhern part of the property'
Spread footiugs placed on the nahtral gravel subsoils or compacted stnrctural fill and
desigled tor an ailowabie bearing pressure qf-3-,900 psf appear suitabie for buiiding
supfort. Foundations should be kept shallow to avoid groundwater impacts- The
iniin'ation septic.disposai systems should be engineered for the site specific groundwater
and soil conditions.
The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and
presenrs our recornmendations suitabie for pianning and preliminary design. It is
i*porturt that we provide cousullation during design, and field services during
construction to review and monirol 6[s imPiemenadon of the geotech:rica1
recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, piease cotrtact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHMCAL, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PTIRPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSI'RFACE qONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT
FLOODING . . .
SINKI{OLES
EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS
RADIATION POTENTIAL
PRELIMINARY D ESIGN RECOMMEND ATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION
FLOOR SLABS
SURFACEDRAINAGE ...
PAVEMENT SECTION .
PERCOLATION TESTNG
LIMiTATIONS .
REFERENCE . .
FIGIIRE 1 - GEOLOGY MAP AND E}CPLORA.TORY PIT LOCATIONS
FIGIIRE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
FiGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FiGURE4.6-SWELL-CONSoLIDATIONTESTRESULTS
FIGURE 7 . GRADATION TEST RESIILTS
TABLEI-SUMMARYoFLABoRATORYTESTRESULTS
TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESTILTS
1
1
,2
2
H-P GEOTECH
a
4
4
A
5
6
6
'l
7
7
n
8
8
9
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
t
PIIRPOSE AND SCOPE OF STIJDY
This report presents the results of a preiiminary geotechaical study for the
proposed residential subdivision at Blue Creek Ranch located north of the Roaring Fork
River and east of 100 Road, Garfield Counfy, Colorado. The project site is shown on
Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to evaiuate the geologic and subsurface conditions
aud their potentiai impacts on the project. The snrdy was conducted in accordance with
our agreemenr for professional services to WindRiver Holdings, LLC dated July 24,
2000.
A field expioration program consisting of a reconnaissance and expioratory pits
was conducted to obtain idormarion on the site and subsurface conditions. $amples of
the subsoils obtained during the fieid exploration were tested in the laboratory to
d.etermine their classification, compressibiiity or swell characteristics and other
engineering properties. Percolation testing was also performed to evaluate the
feasabiliry of infiitration septic d.isposal systems. The resuits of the fieid exploration and
Iaboratory testing were analyzed to deveiop recomrnendations for project planning and
preiimimry desigu. This repon summarizes the data obtained during tbm study and
presents our conclusions aud recorrmendations based on the proposed development aud
subsurface conditions encountered.
PROPOSED DEYELOPVIENT
At the time of thrs snrdy developmeut plans rvere in the conceptuai stages' The
d,evelopment willbe a single family residentiai project and tree farm. The existing
ranch buildings will remain. The tree farm wi1l be located on the high terrace in the
northern parr of the properry. The ffee farm will provide a buffer zone between the
houses and Highw ay 82. Niaeteen clustered buildilg sites are pianned on the upper
terrace to the north of the exisring ranchbuiidings. Tweury building sires ou large lots
are pianned to the south of the existing ranch buiidi:rgs. Private driveways will be used
to provide access to the building sites and a dedicated road will provide access to
Counry Road 100. We assume the residences will be rypical of those i:r the area and be
H.P GEOTECH
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
t
n
two to three story buildings with slab-on-grad.e or shailow crawlspace. Extensive site
grading will probably not be required for the type of deveiopment proposed- The
d.eveiopment will have on-site wells and a packaged centraiized sewer system.
SITE CO}IDITIONS
The Blue Creek Ranch subd,ivision is located in the Roaring Fork valley about
three miles up stream from Carbondale. The property is located to the southeast of
Catherine's Store.nearlhe center of Sectiou 31, T- 7 S., R. 87 W' The Roari:rg Fork
fuver borders the properry on the south. The general topography is shown on Fig' 1'
The ground in the area consists of nearly levei terraces to the north of the river. The
termces are ftom about 5 to 15 feet above the river. Ponds and several irrigation
ditches are present on the properry. Much of the properly is irrigated pasture aad hay
fields. Outside the irrigated areas, vegetation consists of cottonwood trees, grass and
brush. Wetlands are present in some of the lower lying pans of the property'
GEOLOGIC SETTNG
Regional geology mappiag shows that formation rock in the project area is the
Pennsylvaoian age Eagle Valley Evaporite (Kirkham and Widmann, 1997) ' Rock
ourcrops are not present on the property, bul outclops and shallow colluvium (Qc/Pee)
are presetrt on the vailey to the south of the river. At the project site the Eagle Valley
Evaporite is expected, to iie below rypicai foundation excavations depths' The Eagle
vailey Evaporite is a gray to tatr gypsum, anhydrite and halite with interbedded
siitstone, claystone, shale and. dolomite. Bedding in the rock is usually complexly
folded because of flow of the piastic evaporite. The gypsum, anhydrite and halite are
solubie rn fresh water. Subsurface voids and relatec sinkhoies are sometimes preseD't in
areas where the Eagle Vailey Evaporite is present near the ground surface' Evidence of
si:rkhoies was not observed on the proPerty'
Hoiocene aud late Pleistocene alluvium deposited by the Roaring Fork River is
present below the terrace on the ploperty. The exploratory pits show that the ailuvium
rypically consists of a thia upper sandy clay rhat is usuaily less than 3.5 feet thick' The
H.P GEOTECH
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
-3-
underlying alluvium is a dense deposit of rounded gravel, cobbles and bouiders il a
siIry sand matrix. Four terrace levels are present on the properfy (Qtl through Qt4)'
The lowest level represents abandoned river channels. The higher tenaces represent
former vailey floor ievels. Along this reach of the Roaring Fork River, the modern
river channel transitions ft'om a straight channel paftern up stream of the Counry Road
100 bridge to a braided channel pattern. down stream of the bridge. The lower terraces
to the north of the river at the project site show a reiict bradded Stre2m pattern on the
aerial photograPhs.
FIELD UGLORATION
The field expioration for the project was conducted on Juiy 28, 2000' Fourteen
exploratory pits were excavated at the iocations shown on Fig' 1 to evaiuate the general
subsurface conditions. The pits were dug with a rubber tired backtoe and were logged
by a represeutative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnicai, Inc.
Sampies of the subsoils were taken by relatively undisturbed and disnrrbed
sampling methods. The undisturbed samples were obtai:red il the fine-grained soiis by
hand driven 2 iach d.iameter liners. The disnubed sarrples were obtained in the coarse
granular soiis. Depths at which the sampies were taken are shown on the Logs of
Expioratory Pits, Fig.2. The samples were returned to oul laboratory for review by
the project engineer and testing.
SUBSIIRFACE C ONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface condirions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about Vz to 7 foot of organic topsoil overiying up to
about 3t/z feetof soft to medium stiff saady siiry ciay and' loose silry clayey saad at Pit
g. Below depths from aboulvz to 4 feet, reiativeiy detrse, slightly silry to silty sandy
gravel and cobbles with bouiders was ercountered to the maximum depth explored of
Srh feet. Digging in the dense gravei with the light dury backhoe was difficult due to
the cobbies and boulders.
H-f L:EU I Et-il
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
-4-
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained frorn the pits included uatural
moisture coD.tent and d.ensiry and gradation alalyses. Results of consolidatioo testing
performed on reiatively undisturbed samples of the clay and sand soils, shown on Figs.
4 - 6, indicate moderate to high conrpressibiiiry under conditions of loading and
wening. Resuits of a gradarion analyses performed on a disturbed bulk sample (minus
5 hch fraction) of the natural gravel with cobbtes soiis are shown on Fig. 7- The
laboratory testing is summ.arized in Table I'
Free water was generaily encountered in Pits 1 through 7 (located in the
northern part of t!,e properg) at depths of about lYz to 4 feet and ia Pit 14 at a depth of
5 feet. The upper soils were moist to very moist'
GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENI
There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered in
project planning aud developmeil. These conditions and their expected hfluence on the
proposed development are discussed below'
FLOODING
The low lying ground along the river may be subject to occasional flooding by
the Roarilg Fork River. A hydrologist should evaluate the flood potential for the
project. These evaiuations shouid establish poteutiai flood ievels and the need for
mitigation to protect proposed structures in the low tying parts of the site' The flood
evaluations shouid aiso consider the possibiliry of river reoccupation of the abaldoned
sfoanneis and the possible need for fiye1 foank stabilization.
SINKHOLES
Evidence of si,nkholes were not observed in the field or oo the aeriai
photographs of the property. The shkhole risk ou the properry is viewed to be low and
no greater than that presert in other parts of the Roaring Fork Vailey where the
evaporite is near the surface. The potentiai for shallow subsurface voids that could
deveiop i:rto silkhoies should be considered whe1 planning site specific geotechnical
snrdies at the buildiug sites. If conditions indicative of sinkhole reiated problems are
lJ-O f:;^rtr/-Lr
T
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
-i-
etrcountered, the building site should be abandoned or the feasibility of mitigation
evaluated. Mitigation measures could include:
. Stabilization by Grouting
. Stabilization by Excavation and Backtrliing
' Deep Foundation SYstems
. Structural Bridging
I Mat Foundations
. Set-back from the Sinkhole
Water f.utrr.sioch as landscape ponds are not recommended near building sites
unless evaluated on a site specific basis. Home owuers should be advised of the
sinkhole porential, since eariy detection of foundation distress and timely remedial
actions s1g importart in reducing the cost of remediation, should a sinkhole start to
develop after construction.
EARTI{QUAKE CONSIDERATIONS
The project area could experience moderately strong earthquake related ground
sheking. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected duriag a
reasonable service life of the deveiopment, but the probabiliry for stronger ground
sfoaking is low. Intensiry vI ground 5fueking is feit by most peopie and causes general
alarm, but'results in negligible damage to structffies of good design and constntction'
Occupied stnrctuIes should be designed to withstand moderately stroug ground 5fiaking
wirh little or no damage and not to collapse under strouger ground shakilg' The region
is in the Uniform Buiiding Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1' Based on our culren't
understanding of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see oo reasoD' to
increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area'
RADIATION POTENTIAL
The project site is not located on geologic d.eposits that would be expected to
have high concentrations of radioactive minerals. However, there is a potential that
radou gas could be present in the area. It is difficult to assess fun:re radon gas
concentratioos ia buildings before the buiidings are constructed. Testing for radon gas
levels could be d.one when the residences and. other occupied struchrres have been
H-P GeorEcr
I
I
I
t
t
T
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
t
I
T
I
t
-6-
completed. New buildings are often designed with provisions for ventilation of lower
enclosed areas should post construction testing show unacceptabie radon gas
concentration.
PRELINTINARYDESIGNRECOMME}'IDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented beiow are based on the
proposed development, the site reconnaissa[ce, subsurface conditions encountered in the
exploratory pits, aud our experience il the area. The recornmendations are suitabie for
piannilg and preliminary design but site specific studies shouid be conducted for
individuai lot develoPmetrt.
FOUNDATIONS
Bearing cond.itions wiil vary depending on the specific location of the buiidings
on the property. The subsoils consist of compressible clay and sand soils overiying
dense gravel Soiis. The clays and sands possess iow bearing capaciry and moderate to
high settlement potentiai. The underiying gravels possess moderate bearing capacity and
low settlement Potential.
Based on the nature of the proposed construction, spread footings bearing on the
natural gravel subsoils should be suitable for building supporl' We expect the footings
can be sized for an allowable soii bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The overiying fi:re
grained soiis may need. to be removed to expose the uuderlying gravels aud repiaced
with compacted structurai fil}. We can evaluate the feasibiliry of bearing on the upper
fi:re- grained soils, such as with a lightly loaded monolithic slab foundation' as part of
the site specific iot stud.y. Foundation walls should be designed' to span local anomaiies
and to resist rateral earrh loadings when acting as retaining structures. The footings
shouid. have a minimum depth of 36 inches for frost protection.
H.P GEOTECH
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
-'7 -
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Ground warer level typically appears shallow throughout the project area. Fie1d
sprinkler and flood irrigation could be contributing to the shallow groundwater
condition. Due to the shallow water level aud flat lying terrain, it will probabiy D'ot be
practicai to protect beiow grade areas from wetting and hydrostatic pressue buildup by
use of an underdrain system. We recommend that slab-on-grade floors be placed near to
above existing gracle and crawlspaces be kept shallow, at least 2 feet above grouudwater
level. Basement levels may not be feasible. Potential groundwater impacts on proposed
development shouid be evaluated as part of the site specific building study.
FLOOR SLABS
Slab-on-grade consuuction should be feasible for beari-ng on the natural soils
below the topsoil. There could be some potenrial for siab settiement where there are
compressibie clay subgrad.e soils. To reduce the effects of some differendal movemetrt,
notr-structural floor slabs shouid be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
expansion joints. Fioor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to
shrinkage cracking. A minimum 4 inch thick layer of free-draining gravei should
underiie building slabs to break capiilary watel rise and facilitate drainage'
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The grading piatr for the subdivision should consider runoff through the project
and at individuai sites. Water shouid. not be allowed to pond next to buildings. Exterior
bacicf,rlt should be weil compacted and have a positive siope awa)/ from the building for a
distance of 10 feet. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge rvell beyond the limits
of all backfill.
PAVEMENT SECTION
The near surface soils encountered in the pirc beiow the topsoil consist of poor
quaiity sandy silty ciay and fair to good qualiry sandy gravel' We recommend the
pavem.ent section for the site access road cousist of a minimum 3 inches of asphait
pavement on 8 inches of Class 6 aggregate base course for the sandy gravel subgrade
condition. The subgrade shouid be evaluated for pavement support at the time of
H-P GEOTECH
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
-8-
construction. Subexcavation of the fi.ne-grained soils and repiacement with coarse
gravel subbase material may be needed to achieve a stable subgrade'
PERCOLATION TESTING
percolation tests were conducted on July 29, 2OAO to evaluate the feasibiliry of
infiitration septic disposal systems. one percolation hole was dug adjacent each of the 14
exploratory pits at the locations show:r on Fig' 1' The test holes (uominal 12 inch
diam.eter by llinch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shailow backhoe pits and
were soaked withlvater otre day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the percoiation
holes are similar to those exposed in the exploratory pits shown on Fig' 2' T\e
percolation test results are presented in Tabie tr. The infiltration septic system disposai
systems shouid be engineered for the site specific groundwater and soil conditions'
LIiVTITATIONS
ThisSrudyhasbeenconductedaccoroingtogenerallyacceptedgeotechnical
engineering principies and plactices in this area at this time' We make no wa11ant'v
eirher expressed or impiied. The conciusions and recommendations submitted in this
report are based upon the data obEined' from the field reconnaissance' review of
published geoiogic repofls, the exploratory pits located' as shown on Fig' I and to the
depths shown on Fig. 2, theproposed rype of construction and our experience il the
area. our flndilgs incrude interpoiation and extraporation of the subsurface conditions
identifled ar the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not
become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during
consuucti.on appeal different from those described in this report' rve should be notifi'ed
so that re-evaluation of the recorrmendations may be made'
Thisreporthasbeenprepared'fortheexclusiveusebyourclientforplrnningand
preiimrnary design purposes. we are D.ot Iesponsibie for technical interpretations by
others of our ilformatioo. As the project evoives, we should provide contj1ued
consultatiou, conduct additional evaluatious and' review and monitor the implementation
of our recoulmendations. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or
modifications to the recommendations presented herein' We recommend on-site
H.P GEOTECH
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
-9 -
observaiion of excavations ald foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by
a representative of the geotechnical engineer'
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawiak, P.
SLP/ksw
Design Workshop, lnc. - Attn: Sheri Sanzone
Davis llortr, Inc. - Attn: Glen Horn
REFERENCE
Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, 8.L.,
Quadrangle, GarJield Counry,
91-3.
tgg7, GeologY MaP of the Carbondale
Colorado, Colorado Geoiogical Suwey Open Fiie
.ac4, 1tr.a.1 .
I JLLL
*6,\-, FiB\
&$4"'#e
\lr,t,l'r.*T
,rj')i9or., "SY'ia#;lt'uts
H-P Georecn
o{rr{M"n'd ffi'*L
Engineering Geoiogist -
and by:
cc: Sopris Engineering -
T
I
T
I
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
t
0 500fi.
ttl
Scale 1 in. = 500 ft.
Conburs 2 t
EXPLATTIATION:
al - Man-Placed Fill
Qc - Colluvium
Qtl - Abandoned River Channels
Qtz - Louv RiverTenace
Ots - lntermediab River Ternace
Qt4 - High River Tenace
Pee - Eagle ValleY EvaPorite
-
Contact (apprp6r.)
P'1. Eplorabry Pit
Proposed Blue Creek Ranch SuHivision
ieoGor Mao and Eroloratory Pit LocalionsHEPWORTH.PAW.AK
GEOTECHNIGAL, lnc.
l+Ei
Depth - FeetDepth - Feet
r"i
6i;
o
C3o.co
.6
a
E
-oI
a
o
co
oCoz-xlrl
ai
oz.
Io
N
I
ITK',ffi
nffi,=-X..q
ffi +I l"'tr)q)llN@oI lt o(JnN
=61ffi
NN6J
Fo) II_cooll ilo(J-N
=a I
Depth - Feet
o6rr)'l (oN(o llc{ooil ilo(JoN3o I
f-6
I+
+tl
?of-.N(o
lt
st--ig LrJ'-l
O- trl
ioFN(O
llt)
u LrJ'-)Lur
.N
6N
(,o
il
c{-iL!o- L-.1
@N(o
il
-ipt4
O- lrJ
-cO
Fc!(o
IIo
=3o- uJ
10r-N(o
il
ori
gLJ,_)
o- Ld
-@
t-.N(o
il
coi
-!aul
r)f-
ilo
c\
I
ffi
ll'= - ex=ail lt oO^Nia =- I
[TT.H
lr,
ffio,9
NET
.\AR
=6 I
mfr
It,
Depth - Feet
€ol
ltoo
It,
ffi
It,-
+c\
il
bo)Nro
ll
N>
u LrJ,_)
O- LrJ
-.n
o)N(o
I
(o>
-!
O- trJ
io
o)N(o
I
lr)ir-!
o- Ld
'o
o)N(o
I
+i-!
LUJ
'c.I
o)sl
(O
il
F., jE!o- uJ
+0N
(O
I
Nir9
O- LrJ
i-6N(o
il
L Lr.i,_)
0- uJ
lr'
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITSHEPWORTH PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
rfTrrl rrTnl
o
T
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
T
I
t
LEGEND
a
n
ltr.g
Esi
ffib\g
TOPSOIL; orgonic silty cloy, soft, moist to very moist' dork brown'
Cmy (Ct-): silty. sondy, soft to medium stiff, very moist to wet, mixed brown' low plosticity'
SAND (SM-SC); silty, cloyey, loose, very moist' dork brown'
GRAVEL AND CSBBLES (cM-cp); with boulders, sondy, slightly silty to silty, dense' moist to very
,oi"t ,ritf, depth, mixea brown, rounded to subrounded rock'
k 2" Diometer hond driven liner somple'r
I I Disturbed bulk somPle.
L -.rI
=
Free woter level in pit of time of excovotinq'
NOTES:
1. Explorotory pits were excovoted on July 28' 2O0O with o bockhoe'
2.LocotionsondelevotionsofexplorotorypitswereprovidedbySoprisEngineering.
Pit logs ore drown to dePth'
3. The explorotory pit locotions ond elevotions should be considered occurote only to the degree
implied bY the method used'
4. The lines between moteriols shown on the explorotory pit loqs represent the opproximote
boundories between moteriol types ond tronsitions moy be groduol'
5.Woterlevelreodingsshownonthelogswerelod:ot.thetimeondundertheconditionsindicoted'
No free woter woi encountered in pitls- 3 ond 8 thru ti. fluctuotions in woter level moy occur with iime'
6. LoborotorY Testing Results:
WC = Woier Content (%)
DD = Dry DensitY ( Pcf )*4 = Percent retoined on No' 4 sieve
-2OO : Percent Possing No' 200 sieve
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITSHEPWORTH PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.100 601
rl
rl
]
1I
t
T
I
T
I
T
I
I
I
l
I
I
t
I
be
o,6
a
a)
o-
Eo
0
1
2
'(
+
5
6
7
I
1.0 10 100
0.'l
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
c
.9o6!)Lo
EoO
0
1
2
5
4
5
6
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
0.1
Moisture Content = 22.9 Percent
Dry Density = 1O2 Pcf
Somple of: Sondy SiltY CloY
From: Pit 2 al 1.5 Feet
--_- Compre
upon
wetting
sslon
Moisture Content : 24.0 Percent
Dry DensitY = 101 Pcf
Somple of: SondY SiltY CloY
From: Pit 4 of 1.5 Feet
No movement
upon
wetting
I
SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTSHEPWORTH PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.100 601
Iu
,/
l
T
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
'6
a
0,
o-
EoO
0
a
I
2
3
+
6
7
I
1.0 10 100
0.1
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
i.e
C
.9o
@
0)
a
Eo
LJ
0
1
2
1
4
6
7
I
1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
Moisture Content = 24.2
Dry Density : 98
Sompie of: Sondy Silty Cloy
From: Pit 6 qt 1.5 Feet
percent
Pcf
lt+
,1
I t/
No movemen
upon
wettinq I
I
_L
\.t
Moisture Content : 17.7
Dry DensitY = 89
Somple of: SiltY CloYeY Sond
From: Pit 8 qt 3 Feet
percen t
Pcf
\
Compression
upon
wetting
\
\
0.1
SWELL-CONSOLIDATICN TEST RESULTSHEPWORTH PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
\
\
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b(
.9ottt
0,
o-
Eo
O
0
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
1.0 10
APPUED PRESSURE - ksf
100
0.1
b{
.9aao
o-
Eo
0
1
2
+
5
tr
7
I
0.1 1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
Moisture Content = 25.1 Percent
Dry Density : 89 Pcf
Somple of: Sondy SiltY CloY
From: Pit 9 of 1.5 Feet
+
t Compression
upon
wetting
t.
_t
\
\
\
D
Moisture Content = 27.3 Percent
Dry DensitY = 86 Pcf
Somple of: SondY SiltY CloY
From: Pit 14 of 2 Feet
C-
hlo movement
upon
wettinq
\t'
\
\
\
100
SWELL_CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTSHEPWCRTH PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.100 601
-+
!
ll
I
-L
I
I-I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
)
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
'nl€ REAOTNGS
60 MlN.19 MlN. 4 MlN.
q.EAR SqUARE OPENINCS
2iT HR. 7 HR
1.:i uH. 15 UN.
a
trJz.
=F
tiJ
Fz
LrJ(J
E,
LLI
o-
(,zaa
o-
Fz.
UJO&.
UJ
o-
.O7t .t5O .J{tO .600 1-18 2.16
DIAME]ER OF PARIICLES IN
+.76 9.5125 19.0
MILLIMETERS
5r.5 76-2 152 205
127
GRAVEL A7
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF:
% SAND 12
Sondy Grovel ond Cobbles
% SILT AND CLAY 1 %
PLAS]ICITY INDEX %
FROM: Pit 13 ot 3 thru 4 Feet
A.AY TO SILT
100 60'l HEPWORTH PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.GRADATION TEST RESULTS Flg. z
I
I
q
G
GFoY
;o;E
u6
(o
(J
!
(n
C
a
G
(J
=a
Coa
(o
(J
t
a
15
Ga
!
oa
q)
G
CJ
P
a
(o
=a
Coa
(-
o
6
o
l)a
>-9
oO(/)(J
o
U
=a
C
a
^oq\-
z6l-6v-zefr9Oqc=osFz;o
q
E
E
o
q
6U
L
o-XAH8
L,
o-dEE
FooZzau!iaN:
=6:=E<Y@
o
@
O)r\co
f\
FN $F @(o
zo
tr
&
o-Zo<Eq
N
U>:
c-
F
@
irG>!=
-;OlAzlk-q-Zo
No o @
o)@
o)(o
co
r9r
GJU^
-FrJa6-o-<oozEo
q
N
N
q
+N
ol
<f
N
tr\'riC\
q
r\N
zo
tr
o
u
=
-d-\-\\N s
o)
N
F
G N <'(o @ O)CO $
o(o
o
dz
ct
(J"')
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
LJZ ajl
OUJ
=E6nUJFF
uJ-xO-E
>rd#1fls
=1+o
l- rr'na
B=o-6
IJJ
:E
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESU LTS
Nore: Percolation tests were conducted adjacent to
shown on Fig. 1, Percolation test holes were
Percolation tests were conducted on July 29,
lnc.
JOBNO. 100 601
Paqe 1 of 5
corresponding exploratory pits located as
hand dug and soaked on JulY 28, 2AAO.
2OOO by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
HOLE NO.HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MrN./rNCH)
P-',r 15 Y.15
water added
8 '/.6 1/.134
20
6%5 1/.1
q 7%1"L
7%6
"/,
1',L
6Y,q 1/"1
5y,4'.h 1
4 1/z 3%,,/.
3%3 3/)1
P-2 15 15 11 8rh 21/o
24
8Y"7 './z
3/
7y,7 1/-
7 6 ','/,th
6lz 5Y.1/.
d 1/-4%;{
4%4Yo Y,
4Y"5/2 3/
P-3 15
water added
water added
5 3y,I /2
30
3Y.2%3/
4Yz 3%1/o
3%.),/o
5 tl 1
4 3 '/o 1/n
3%2%'/,
z%:/2
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Note: Percolation tests were conducted adjacent
located as shown on Fig' 1 , Percolation test
2OOO. Percolation tests were conducted
Geotechnical, lnc'
JOB NO. 100 601
Paqe 2 of 5
to corresponding numbered exploratory pits
holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28,
on July 29, 2000 bY HePworth - Pawlak
o
HOLE NO.HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATEB DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES}
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MrN./rNCH)
P-4 15 15
water added
water added
9 3%5 '/o
9 o 3
6 J
9%6 ai'n ) 1/-
6%4%a
4%z%2
z%1 1%
P-5 11 15
water added
b 416 1Yn
4%4 7+
4 1y,
6Yo 5 3,6 1/"
5%41/"1
4%4
4 3 '1
J 2 r,L %
P-6 16 15
water added
8%5%?
IJ
5%3%2
3%2 1%
2 1 1
1O Yz 8%2Yo
8Yn O'/2 1 1/,
6Y.5Yo 1ln
5Yn 4%,,I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Note: Percolation tests were conducted adjacent to
shown on Fig. 1. Percolation test holes were
Percolation tests were conducted on July 29,
lnc.
JOBNO. 100 601
Paqe 3 of 5
corresponding exploratory pits located as
r hand dug and soaked on July 28, 2OOO.
2000 by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
e3o
HOLE NO.HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
ilNCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MtN./INCH)
P-7 11 Yz 15
water added
water added
5%)3L 3
20
2%%2
6 4y,11h
4Yz 3rh 1
5%4 )1,1rA
4Y.4
4 3
"/"
%
3Y"z r,k
P-8 23 15
water added
water added
8%5.,L 3y,
9%6',h J
b'/c 4 1 3/-
4 2 2
9'/z O "/4 , a/-
6'/c 4 tYq 2
4%J 1%
J 1 2
P-9 26 Y.15
water added
water added
8Yo 3t,4',L
9lo 5Yo 4
5Y"1%3Y,
9To 7%z
7 t/"5Yz z/4
5'/,J,, 1/-
J 1 2
o
I
I
T
I
I
t
t
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
T
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 100 601
Note: percolation tests were conducted adjacent to corresponding exploratory pits located as
shown on Fig. 1. Percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28, 2OOO.
Percolation tests were conducted on July 29,2OOO by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
lnc.
e4of5
HOLE NO.HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTEHVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
{INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MlN./tNCH)
P-1 0 18 15
water added
water added
6 lti 4%
15
5 3%1%
3%- a/1
5 3t,th
3Y,Ll2 1
zt2 1y,1
P-11 26 Yz 15
water added
water added
6 3 r,L z/2
13
3v,1Y.z/4
4Yz a/2 2
2Y2 1 1
"12
7 5 ',/2 1Yz
5 '/,4',/2 1
4Y,3'./o 1Y.
P-12 23 15
water added
water added
water added
5%, 3/-
2%1 1%
5Yz 3'h 2
3T,1 t/o 2 r,L
4Yz - t/Z t4
4Yz t.Zt2
2'A f"2
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
HEPWORTH.PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO.100 601
f5Paqe 5
Note: percolation tests were conducted adjacent to corresponding exploratory pits located as
shown on Fig. 1. percolation test holes were hand dug and soaked on July 28, 2000'
percolation tests were conducted on July 29,2OoO by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
lnc.
e50
HOLE NO.HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES}
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES}
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MlN./INCH)
P-1 3 23 y,15
water added
water added
foater added
water added
b 1Yz 4Yz
6y,1 t/o 5%
b 1%41h
b 1
,/,6Y,
5 z/2 \-/
15
P-14 23 15
water added
water added
7rh
3Y"1%
8 6Yo 1%
6Yo 4Yz 1%
4Yz ) 1/-2
o 6 2
6 +/2 1Y,
4Y.3Y,I
3Y,2',/.,1
tn,
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
Preliminary Effluent Limits (PELs), CDPHE, WQCD.
Page 19
STATE OF COLORADOt
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
Bill Owens, Covernor
.lane E. Norton, Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment oi the people of colorado
4300 cherry Creek Dr. 5. Laboratory and Radiation services Division
Denver. Coiorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd'
Phone (303) 692-2000
TDD Line (303) 691 -7700
Located in Clendale, Colorado
h tt p'//ww w. c d p h e. srate. c o. u s
Denver, Colorado 80230-6928
(303) 692-1090 Colorado Deparunent
of PublicHealth
andEnvironment
May 24,2001
Thomas A. Zancanella" PE
Zancanella and Associ ate s, :[nc.
PO Box 1908
1005 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Re: Proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP, Garfield County
Dear Mr. Zancatella:
The Colorado Department of public Health and Environment, water Quality Controi Division, has
completed your request for preliminary effluent limits (PELs) for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
wastewater trearrnent ptant (WWTP). Your crurent proposal is for a WWTP with a hydraulic design
capacity of 0.02 million gallons per day (MGD)'
This proposed faciliry would discharge into the Roaring Fork fuver in the Nw1/4 of SE1/4' Section 3 t'
Township 7 South, Range g7 West oith" 6th P.M. in Garfield County. This portion of the Roaring Fork
River is identified as str-eam segment COUCRF03, which means the Upper Colorado fuver Basin,
Roaring Fork River Subbasin, Str.u* Segment 3. This stream segment is composed of the "Mainstem
of the Roaring Fork River, including all tributaries, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs from a point
immediately below the confluence with Hunter Creek, to the confluence with the Colorado River except
for those tributaries included in Segment 1 and specific listings in Segments 3a through 10'" These
identifications are found. in the Clisification and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin
and North Platte River (Planning Region 12).
Effluent limits for specific constituents are based on the type of permit a facility wiil require after
construction. The Blue Creek Ranch WWTP may be covered by a general permit-
The preliminary effluent limitations were developed for the Blue Creek Ranch wwTP based on effluent
limits established in the Regulations for Efiluent Limitariorzs for a WWTP consisting of a mechanicai
wastewater treatment pro""rr, * *.il us the water quaiiry-based effluent limits necessary for protection
of the water qualify of tn. Roaring Fork fuver. A PELs evaluation is attached to document the findings
and decisions that were used to derive the PELs in Table 1'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP
Thomas A. Zancanella, PE
May 24,2001
Page2
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (303) 692-3614'
I
SincerelY, /
-:{ur^-LZfz<
I Karen Yo,ng v -
Environmental Protection Specialist
I i,;HllYlib[:H":HlY,':Ttection
Section
I ENCLoSITRE
cc: Locai Health DeParunent
I Dwain Watson, District Engineer, Grand Junction Office
I rom Bennert, Drinking water and wastewater lgghnical Services
Garfield CounrY File
I
I
I
I
t
I
Froposid,Bhie Creek Ranch WWTP
Prelimin ary Effl uen t Eimits for" Dis 9l slge tog e
85 (30-day average)A% removal)
@o (30-daygy!rugg)
SS 6O-aay average), meilm-ic-at plant only(% removal)
t0 (maximum;iI and Grease (mdl)
6=:9q minimum- maximum )
@e1, 6,000 (:o-4qrylggg9ffis/100mI)
EO55 (mgt)-
TS, mecEanicilEant (mg/l)
To6iEeaiAuarchlorine (mdl)0.5 (maximum
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield CountyI
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
PnrrrUrXARY E FFLIIENT LNVUTS
Ronnrxc Fonx Rrvnn
Brus CnBnx Raxcn WWTP
I. Introduction
The preliminary Effluent Limits (pELs) analysis of the Roaring Fork fuver near the proposed Blue
Creek Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant (wwTP) was developed for the Colorado Deparrment of
public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quaiity Control Division (WQCD). The PELs
analysis was prepared to facilitate issuance of a Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) permit
for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP.
Figure 1 on the following page contains a map of the study area evaluated as part of this PEL'
The proposed Blue Creek Ranch wwTP will discharge the Roaring Fork River. The ratio ofthe low
flow of the Roaring Fork fuver to the design flow of the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP is
6065:1. Although four other facilities discharge within seven miles downstream of the proposed
Blue Creek Ranch wwTp, due to the smail design flow of the proposed facility versus the high flow
rate of the receiving stream, anaiyses indicate that assimilative capacities are extremeiy large.
Table I
Assessment Summary
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Name of Facility
CO-PEL CDPS number
Upper Colorado fuver Basin, Roaring Fork
fuver Subbasin, Stream Segment 3: Mainstem
of the Roaring Fork fuver, including all
tributaries, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs from
a point immediately below the confluence with
Hunter Creek, to the confluence with the
Colorado fuver except for those tributaries
included in Segment 1 and specific listings in
Segments 3a through 10.
COUCRFO3
WBID - Stream Segment
Cold Water Aquatic Life Class I
Class 1 Recreaction
Agriculrure
Water Supply
Classifications
Undesignated Designation
PELs Page 1 of 15 Draft
I Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
bo ndzl e
. Roaring Fork.River
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
Figure 1
Study Area
LEGEND
I Discharges to 'rraterE Supertund sites
I Hazardous lvaste
E Toxic releasesI Air raleases
r others
I raulupl"
A/ Streets
@ Water Bodies
E3 Counties
Source: EPA's EnviromaPPer,
8.2 mi across
Information used in this assessment includes data gathered from the U. S. Geological Survey
(USGS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Riverwatch, and the WQCD. The data
used in the assessment consist of the best information available at the time of preparation of this
PELs package.
II. Water QualitY
The proposed Blue Creek Ranch wwTP wiil discharge to the Water Body Identification (WBID)
stream ,.gm.rt COUCRF63, which means the Upper Colorado fuver Basin, Roaring Fork River
Subbasin-Stream Segment 3. This segment is composed of the "Mainstem of the Roaring Fork
fuver, including att tributaries, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs from a point immediately below the
confluence with Hunter Creek, to the confluence with the Colorado River except for those tributaries
included in Segment i and specific listings in Segments 3a through 10." Stream segment
I
I
PELs Page 2 of 15 Draft
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
COUCRFo3 is classified for Cold Water Aquatic Life Class 1, Class 1 Recreaction, Agriculture, and
Water Supply.
Numeric standards are developed on a basin-specific basis and are adopted for particular stream
segments by the Water eualiryControl Commission. To simpliff the listing ofthe segment-specific
stindards, many of the aquatic life standards are contained in a table at the beginning ofeach chapter
of the regulations. The siandards in Table Zhavebeen assigned to stream segment COUCMo3 in
accordance with the Classification and Numeric Standards for (Jpper Colorado River Basin and
North Platte River (Planning Region 12).
Standards for metals are generally shown in the regulations as Table Value Standards (TVS)' and
these often must be derived from equations that depend on the receiving stream hardness or species
Table 2
In-stream standards for Stream Segment COUCRF03
-
:r:, :,:r.:,rir:;,,' Ehy.StCAL'AO:G':frlOlogtegl
-9su
FEEII C6lil5ffi = 2OO ;6 Io;iE;7 1 OO ml
'-' , 'Inarg.anic :1:"':'-::'::
Ctl6ffiE tEillE = O:Oi9 ffis7l
F;Ee er;;iae ;;ulE = 6:005 mETl -
Nltnte = u.uJ mg/ I
etl6fraE ct;6iic = tso frEi I
:50 ugrl
chronic = TVS
Dissolved Copper acute ano cnronrc : I vJ
PELs Page 3 of 15 Draft
T
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
of fish present. The Classification and Numeric Standards documents for each basin include a
specification for appropriate hardness values to be used. Specifically, the regulations state that:
The hard.ness values used in calculating the appropriate metal standard should be based
on the lower 95% confidence limit of the mean hardness value at the periodic low flow
criteria as determined from a regression analysis of site-specific data. Where
insufficient site-specific data exists to define the mean hardness value at the periodic
low flow criteria, representative regional data shall be used to perform the regression
analysis. Where a regression analysis is not appropriate, a site-specific method should
be used.
Hardness data for the Roaring Fork fuver near the point of discharge of the proposed BIue Creek
Ranch WWTp were inzufficient to conduct a regression analysis based on the low flow. In the
absence of a regression dnalysis, the WQCD's altemative approach to calculating hardness was used,
which involves computing a mean hardness.
The mean hardness was computed to be 199 mg/l as CaCO, based on sampling conducted at
Riverwatch sampling location 72 (Roaring Fork Riv er at7 -11 Bridge) located approximately 7 miles
upstream of the proplsed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP, This mean hardness from the Roaring Fork
River and the lormuias contained in the TVS were used to calculate the in-stream water quality
standards for metals as shown in Table 3.
Ambient Water Qualitv
Th" ,,VaCD **luates ambient water quality based on avariety of statistical methods as prescribed in
Section 31.8(2)(aXi) and 31.8(2XbXiXB) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment Water euality Control Commission Regulation No. J/. Ambient water quality is
evaluated as part of this assessment to determine assimilative capacities.
To conduct an assessment of the ambient water quality upstream of the Blue Creek Ranch wwTP,
data were gathered from two sources. Data from the fuverwatch sampling location 72, located
approximateiy seven miles upstream of the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP, were used to
determine ambient background concentrations forpH, temperanre, dissolved oxygen, andhardness'
Data were available for a period of record from October 1995 through February 2000. Data gathered
at rhe WeCD sampling location OOOl44ll2708 (Roaring Fork fuver beiow Aspen), located
approximately twenty-five miles upsffeam of the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP, provided
Uuitgro,rnd data on fecal coliform, ammonia, and metais. This WQCD sampling location was
designated as sampling location 000144 untii 1997, and later renumbered as WQCD sampling
location 12708. These data were avaiiable for a period of record from October 1996 through April
2000. These data. which represent upstream ambient water qualiry, are summarized in Table 4'
III. Water Quantit"v
The Colorado Regulations specify the use of low flow conditions when establishing water quality
based effluent limitations, specifically the acute and chronic low flows. The acute low flow, referred
PELs Page 4 of 15 Draft
I Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield Counly
to as 1E3, represents the one-day low flow recurring in a three-year interval. The chronic low flow,
30E3, represents the 30-day average low flow recurring in a three-year interval'
Low Florv Analvsis
To determine the low flows avaiiable to the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP, a flow gage
measurement immediately upstream of the proposed faciiiry should be used. There are, however' no
gage stations within 15 miles upstrearn or downsffeam of the proposed facility'
Low flows were therefore determined using a comprehensive analysis of the flow balance of the
Roaring Fork Riverperformedby the WQCD in 1998. As part of this analysis, the WQCD obtained
Roaring Fork fuveidaiiy flow data from several USGS gage stations and then performed a flow
balance throughout the basin to determine low flows at multiple discharge points and tributary
I
I
I
ir
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
Ir
lr
la
l:
Table 3
Site-specific Water Quality Standards for the Proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP
Based on the Table value Standards Contained in the Colorado Deparfment of Public Health
and Environment Water Quality Control Commissio l4:g"!",i"fr 3
m"t t"a Using the Following Vaiue for Hardness as CaUUr: I 12ng/t
P'arameter
In-Stream l(ater
Quality Standard Formula Used
Cadmnrn, Dissolved
Trout 8.5; ,rdl p8 (lnth ardness))--l . I 2 E )
Chronic 1.9: udl ,a67i52(irlt"rdn e ss ) ) - I .'i 9 o )
Hexavalent Ctromiurn,
Dissolved
Acute 16i ugA Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Chronic 11i udl Numeric standards provided' lormula not applicable
Copper, Dissolved
Acute 34i odl u@.9a2Z1nlhardness))-
I .+o J 4 )
Chroruc 2l: ugA ;iO3-54T(ln(h316ns55I)-
I .'t65 )
Lead, Dissolved
Acute 291: u9l Ji-i-4T(Iffieidn e ss ) ) - 2 . s 7 3 6 )
Chronic 10i ugfi ry"f**"--s.167)
Nickel, Dissohed
Acute 156 i i udl
"lO.T6tlnthardness))+J.
j J )
Chronic 161, u91 ;@l-5(hI*rdn ess) )+ I' o 6 )
Seieniurn, Dissolved
Acute 20; ugA Numeric standards provided' tbrmula not applicable
Chronic 5.0: ugl Numeric standards provided. formula not appiicable
Silver, Dissolved
Acute 6.6' ugl , tTT2ttntnardness))
Trout 0.25. ugl F.?Zllrfhardness))- I 0.5 I )
Zinc, Dissotved
Acute 210 i ugl F4 ?Thff"ton ess ) ).0. 8 6 o 4 )
Chronic 190 ugl ;@l"G**))'u.76i4)
PELs Page 5 of 15 Draft
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
confluences. Based on this analysis, the estimated low flows for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
WWTP are presented in Table 5.
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Ambient water Qualitv for the Proposed Blue creek Ranch wwTP
g, Tot (u
ulfate (mg/
itrate+Nltnte (mg/
NH3. Tot (mgll)
NHl. Unronzed (mgi
upstream of the propsed Blue Creek Ranch WWT P 'This data covers the period of record of 1 0i95 through 2/00'
e stream standaro ls ln un ml. Note that tor
summarization purposes, the value of one was used where there was no detectable amount because the geometric mean of one is
in accordance wllNote j: w nen sample results were IluIl-usLGlL' Lrrs v
approach for summarization and averaglng pwposes'
eater than lffid paranteters were lound at less tnan detectxDl
in-stream standards. ln accordance wrth WQCD procedures, ambient water quality is not determined usingnon-detect data
when detection levels are greater than the in-stream standards'
I
t
I
PELs Page 6 of 15 Draft
,, of
Samples
I 5th 50th
Mean
Stream
Standard
elTm
D0(mgrl)JC E.)IL t2 IU
pH (su)JC E.i 5.C 9 5.b 6.)-!
fecal Coliform (#/ 100
ml)18 I 1 J 2 200
Harclness (mg/ t
CaCOr)45 r39 202 246 199 NA 1
As, Dls (ug/l)U L U U.U6L NA
Cd, Dts (ug/l)JJ U U U U )
Cu, Dts (ug/t)JJ U U L 0.u)z 2L
Fe, Dis (ugrl)o lq LJ J0r
Fe. Trec 1ug/l)JJ 52 .+0 t4z IJY IUUU
Pb, Dts (ug/l)JJ L ti U 0.097 i0 J
Mn, Dls (ug/t))J U (,U.4U u.oi )L
L9 NTJ N I.J NI.J NIJ 0.0 I ..1
SE Dis (ue/l)(,U t v./>)
Ag, Dts (ug/t))x NIJ NU NU NU 0.2)
Zn- Dls (us/t)JJ U U tl IU lvu
B, Dis (mgi I)9 U (,U t l,)u
JJ +..1 93 IJU 9/
P, Tot (mg/t)l4 O.OJU 0.u4 0.u6 r U.U4b NA
JJ t U o:)t u.tt NA
IKN (mg/l)I L U L (,NA
(l C 0 0.00091 NA J
28 0.003 0.006 0.0 13 0.0096 0.02
ISS tmgrl)JJ ti L ).u NA
T
I
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
In the months of January, June, July, and October, the acute low flow exceededthe chronic low flow.
In accordance with WeCD standard procedures, the acute low flow was set equal to the chronic low
flow for these months.
IV. Technical AnalYsis
Low flows and in-stream backgrotrnd data evaluated in sections II and III are ultimately used to
determine the assimilative capacity of the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
WWTp for pollutants of concern. For all parameters except ammonia, it is the WQCD's approach to
conduct a technical analysis of stream assimiiation capacity using the lowest of the monthly low
flows (referred to as the annual low flow) as calculated in the low flow analysis. For ammonia, it is
the standard procedure of the WQCD to determine assimilative capacities for each month using the
monthly low flows calculated in the low flow anaiysis, as the reguiations allow the use of seasonal
flows when establishing assimilative capacities.
The WQCD's standard analysis consists of steady-state, mass-balance calcuiations for most
poilutants and modeling forpollutants such as ammonia. The mass-balance equation is used by the
WeCD to calculate the marimum allowable concentration ofpollutants in the effluent, and accounts
for the upstream concentration of a poilutant, criticai low flow (minimal diiution), etfluent flow and
the water qualify standard. The mass-balance equation is expressed as:
Mz=MtQt-MtQr
Qz
Q, : Upstream low flow (1E3 or 30E3)
Q, = Lverage daily effluent flow (design capacity)
Qr: Downstream flow (Q, - Qr)
M, : In-stream background pollutant concentrations
M,: Calculated maximum ailowable effluent pollutant concentration
M,:Maxrmum ailowable in-stream pollutant concentration (water qualify standards)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
Table 5
Low Flows for the Roaring Fork River at the Proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP
A cute
I
I
PELs Page 7 of 15 Draft
Low Flow
Gfs)
Annual Feb '.Mar May lun ful Aug Nov .,D,ec,
159 239 201 210 189 159 365 JJJ 282 235 290 284 265
JUtrJ
Chronrc
188 239.239 239 227 188 36s JJJ 296 307 290 301 265
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
For non-conservative parameters and ammonia, the mass-balance equation is not as applicable and
thus other approachei are considered where appropriate. Note that conservative pollutants are
pollutants that are modeled as if mass is conserved and there is no degradation' whereas non-
tonservative pollutants degrade and sometimes are created within a receiving stream depending on
stream conditions. A moie detailed discussion of the technical analysis for these parameters is
provided in the pages that follow.
Pollutants of Concern
@swereidentifiedbythewQCDaspollutantsofconcernforthisfaciiity:
. BODs
. TSS
o Percent removal;
. Oil and Grease
.pH
.DO
o Fecal Coliform
. Total Residual Chlorine
. Ammonia.
There are no in-stream water quality standards for BOD5, TSS, percent removal, and oii and grease
for the Roaring Fork River. Thus, assimilative capacities were not determined for these parameters
in this section and an antidegradation review for these parameters was not conducted in Section V'
However, the evaiuation of appticable limitations for these pollutants can be lotrnd in Section VI,
Regulatory AnalYsis.
During assessment of the facility, nearby facilities, and. receiving stream water qualiV, no additional
puru.*t"., were identified as pollutants of concern. It should be noted that cyanide and metals are
not evaiuated as part of pELs development because it is the WQCD's approach to ensure control of
cyanide and metals through a pretreatment program, if necessary, versus through wastewater
treatment.
Blue Creek Ranch wwTp: The proposed Blue Creek Ranch wwTP wiil be located near the town
of Muiford in the Southwestern-most corner of Garfield Counry, specificaily, the NW quarter ofthe
SE qua:ter of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6'h P.M. The proposed design
capaciry of the facility is 0.02 MGD (0.031 cfs). The proposed wastewater treatment is a mechanical
wastewater treatment process. The technical anaiyses that lollow inciude assessments of the
assimiiative capacity based on this proposed design capacity'
Nearbv Sources
An assessment of nearby facilities based on EPA's Permit Compiiance System (PCS) database found
5i dischargers in the Garfieid Counfy area. Because of its proximity to Eagle and Pitkin Counties
(within tive miies upstream) facilities in these counties were assessed also. Severai of the facilities
conducted construction related operations and thus had no pollutants of concem in common with
PELs Page 8 of 15 Draft
t
I
I
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
proposed Blue Creek Ranch wwTP. Other facilities discharged to different watersheds or were
io.ut"O more than twenty miles from the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP and thus were not
considered to be of relevance to this analysis-
The nearest dischargers were:
. The Mid-Valley Metropolitan District WWTP (COG584007), located 4 miles upstream
near the town of El Jebel, discharges directly into the Roaring Fork fuver. A few miles
farther upstream the Basalt Sanitation District WWTP (CO0021491), which services the
town of Basalt, also discharges to the Roaring Fork River.
. The Ranch at Roaring Forks (COG584051) discharges to the Roaring Fork River
approximately two miles downstream and the Town of Carbondale W-WTP
(COG5840SO; disctrarges four miles downstream of the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
The ambient water quality background concentrations used in the mass-balance equation account for
pollutants of concern contributed by upstream sources, and thus it was not necessary to modei
upstream dischargers together with the Blue Creek Ranch wwTP when determining avaiiable
assimiiative capacities in the Roaring Fork River. Because of the significant dilution availabie
relative to the size of the dischargers of concern. downstream dischargers'ilere not found to affect
the assimilative capacity calculations for the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek
Ranch WWTP.
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
there is no indication that non-point sources were a significant
Thus, non-point Sources were not considered in this assessment.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based on available information,
source of poliutants of concern-
BOD, TSS. and percent Removal: There are no in-stream water quality standards forBODr, TSS.
and percent removal for the Roaring Fork River. Thus, assimiiative capacities for these parameters
were not calculated.
Oil and Grease: There are no in-stream water qualiry standards for total oil and grcase for the
R"""ng F".k g"er. Thus, assimiiative capacities for totai oii and grease were not calculated.
pH: The pH of a stream measures the intensity of the aciditv or alkalinity of the stream. When pH
falls outside of the neutrai range, it can be harmful to aquatic iife. To determine assimiiative
capacities of a stream for pH, the buffering capacity of the receiving stream and its interaction with
the discharge contributions would need to be assessed in a complex evaluation.
An evaluation of pH d.ata available for the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
WWTp found that the 15'h percentile value was well above the minimum in-stream water qualiry
standard and the 856 percentile value was well beiow the maxrmum in-strearn water quality standard.
Because only 1imited data are avaiiable and because ambient water quality data indicate that no
further controls are needed to meet in-stream pH standards, a complex evaluation ofthe assimilative
capacity for pH is not warranted for this faciiity.
PELs Page 9 of 15 Draft
T
I
I
t
Ir
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
l:
l:
lr
l:
BIue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield Counry
DO: The availability of dissolved oxygen in receiving streams is critical for aquatic life.
D.**porition of organic matter and nitrification within receiving streams are generally the causes
of depletion of DO in receiving waters'
For a non-conservative parameter like DO, a simple mass balance carurot be used to determine
assimilative capacity. Instead, DO background, stream flow, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand and
ammonia loading, stream dimensions, temperature, and estimates of effluent DO may be
incorporated into models such as the Streeter-Phelps Do model or STREAMDo to simulate the
impact of the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP discharge'
An evaluation of DO data available for the Roaring Fork fuver near the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
WWTp found that the 15* percentile value was well above the minimum in-stream water quality
standard. Because only.{imited data are available and because ambient water quality data indicate
that no further conffols are needed to meet in-stream standards for DO, modeling was not conducted
as part of this evaluation and no further discussion of DO is provided'
Chlorine: The mass-balance equation was used to determine the assimilative capacity for chlorine'
Tlr... *. no point sources discharging total residuai chlorine within one mile of the proposed Blue
Creek Ranch WwTp. Because chlorine is rapidly oxidized, in-stream levels ofresidual chlorine are
detected only for a short distance beiow a source. Ambient chlorine was therefore assumed to be
zeto.
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section IV, the acute and chronic low
flows set out in Section IIi, th" chlorine background concenffation of zero as discussed above, and
the in-sffeam standards for chlorine shown in Section II, assimiiative capacities for chlorine were
calculated. The data used and the resuiting calculations ofthe allowable discharge concentration. M3,
are also set forth below.
Fecal Coliform: There are no point sources discharging fecal coliform within one miie of the
p.p"*d Bl"" Creek Ranch wwTp. Thus fecal coliform assimilative capacities were evaiuated
separately.
It is the standard approach of the weCD to perform a mass-balance check to determine if lecal
coliform standards are exceeded. And, as is srandard WQCD procedure, the checks are only
conducted on the chronic low flows as set out in Section III. Using the mass-baiance equation
provided in the beginning of Section IV, the background concenffation for fecal coliform contained
in Section II, and the in-stream standards for fecal coliform shown in Section II, checks for fecal
M , (ug/l)M j (ug/l)M 1 (ug/l)arameter
PELs Page 10 of 15 Draft
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
T
I
I
I
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield Counry
coliform were conducted. The data used and the resulting calculations of the allowable discharge
concentration, Mr, are also set forth below.
Parameter Q t kfs)Q z @fs)Q ' kf'),vt 1 (#/100
ml)
M 3 (#/100
ml)
M 2 (#/1oo
"ml)
Fecal Cohtorm 188 0.031 I UU.UJ I 2 200 I,200,974
Ammonia: Ammonia is present in the aqueous environment in both ionized and un-ionized forms.
It " tt. "*ionized form which is toxic and which is addressed by water quality standards. The
proportion of total ammonia present in un-ionized form in the receiving stream is a function of the
upri..u- and effiuent ammonia concentrations, and the pH and temperature of the receiving stream
and of the effluent, co-tin"d.
The Colorado Ammonia Model (CAM) is a software program designed to project the downstream
effects of ammonia and the ammonia assimilative capacities avaiiable to each discharger based on
upstream water quaiity and effluent discharges. To develop data for the CAM' an in-stream water
quality study muit be conducted of the upstream receiving water conditions, particularly the pH and
corresponding temperature, over a period of at least one year.
There were no data in the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP that
could be used as adequate input data for the CAM. Therefore, the WQCD standard procedure is to
rely on default values for the allowabie chronic concentrations of in-stream total ammorua which are
provided in the Colorado Total Maximum Daily Load and't4/asteload Allocation Guidance and the
-CD\S
Summar.t of Rationale General Permit for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities that
Discharge to Receiving Waters with a Chronic Low Flow: Design FIow Ratio of 100: I or Greater.
Note that acute values are not provided in these sources and thus are not evaluated as part of this
assessment.
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section fV, the acute and chronic low
flows set out in Section III, the mean ammonia background concentration shown in Section II, and
the in-sffeam standards found in the Colorado Total Maximum Daily Load and Wasteload Allocation
Guidance and the CDPS Summary of Rationale General Permitfor Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Facilities that Discharge to Receiving Waters with a Chronic Low FIow: Design Flow Ratio of
I00: I or Greater for Mr, assimilative capacities for chronic totai ammorua were calculated- The data
used and the resulting calculations of the allowable discharge concentration, M,, are contained in
Table 6.
V. Antidegradation Review
As set out in The Basic Standards and Methodologies of Surface Water, Section 31'8(2Xb)' an
antidegradation analysis is required except in cases where the receiving water is designated as "Use
protected." Note that "lJse Protected" waters are waters "that the Commission has determined do
PELs Page 11 of15 Dratl
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
not warrant the special protection provided by the outstanding waters designation or the
antide$adation review process" as set out in Section 3 1.8(2Xb). The antidegradation section of the
regulation became effective in December 2000, and therefore antidegradation considerations are
applicable to the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP permit issuance.
According to the Classification and Numeric Standards for Upper Coiorado fuver Basin and North
platte fuver (Planning Region 12), stream segment COUCRI03 is Undesignated. Thus, an
antidegradation review is required for this segment if new or increased impacts are found to occur.
The ratio of the low flow of the Roaring Fork River to the design flow of the proposed Blue Creek
Ranch WWTp is 6065:1. Section 31.8 (3)(c) specifies that the discharge of poilutants should not be
considered to result in significant degradation of the reviewable waters if the ratio of the low flow of
the receiving water to the facility flow is greater than 100:1. Thus, condition 31.8(3)(c) of the
regulations is met and no further antidegradation evaiuation is necessary'
\II. Regulatory AnalYsis
Reguiation 62. the Regulations for Effluent Limitatiorzs, inciudes effluent limitations that apply to all
discharges of wastewater to State waters, with the exception of storm water and agricultural return
flows. These regulations are appiicable to the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP discharge. Table
7 contains a summary of these limitations.
Table 6
Monthly Assimilative Capacities for Ammonia on the Roaring Fork River
" at the Proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP
Parameter Q r Gfs)Q z Gfs)Q t (cfs)M,r M3 M2
NHr, Tot (mg/l) Jan 239 U.UJ I 2.39 .0 3 t 0.u009I 0.70 5,390
NHr, Tot (mg/l) Feb 239 U.O3I 239.03r U.UUUY I 0.60 4,619
NHr, Tot (mg/l) Mar 239 U.UJ I 239.031 0.00091 0.40 3,077
NHr, Tot (mpl) Apr z2l O.U3I /./. / .u3 L U.UUU9I 0.40 2,923
NH3, Tot (mgl) May 188 U.UJ I 1 EE.U3 I U.UUUY I 0.30 1,81 4
NH3. Tot (mgll) Jun 365 O.U3I JO).UJ I (J.UUUY I 0.30 3,522
NHr, Tot (mgl) Jul 333 0.u3 r JJJ.UJ I U.UUUgI 0.30 3,213
NHr. Tot (mgl) Aug 296 0.031 ).96.U3 |U.OOU9I 0.30 2,85 6
NH3. Tot (mg/l) Sep 301 U.UJ I J07.031 U.UUUY I 0.30 2,962
NH, Tot (mgl) Oct 290 U.UJ I 290.0J i 0.u0091 0.30 2,798
NH1. Tot (mgll) Nov 301 U.UJ I i01.03 i U.UUUY I 0.30 2,904
NHr. Tot (mgl) Dec 265 U.UJ I l,o).uJ r U.UUU9I 0.50 4,267
PELs Page 12 of 15 Draft
T
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
In addition to these regulations, the State has developed the Procedure for Selection of Fecal
Colifurm Limitations permit Conditions that specifies a 30-day average limit of 6,000 colonies per
100 ml and a 7-day average limit of 12,000 colonies per 100 ml when the ratio of the receiving
stream tlow to design flow is greater than ten to one'
PELs Page 13 of 15 Draft
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEL-Garfield CountyI
I
T
I
I
t
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
Note that the TSS limitations shown above vary based on the type ofwastewater treatrnent processes
used at the facility. The Regulations for EfJtuent Limitations waive the 85 percent removal
requirements for TSS where waste stabilization ponds, both aerated and non-aerated, are used as the
principal process for treating domestic wastes.
YII. Preliminary Effluent Limits
The regulations require the use of the most stringent effluent limit for permit limitations. Thus, the
PELs reflected in Table 8 include the most stringent of the following:
o Water quality-based effluent limits as discussed in the technical analysis contained in
Section fV
. ADBELs as discussed in the antidegradation review provided in Section V
. Effluent limits prescribed by the regulations based on the regulatory analysis provided in
Section VI.
45 Q-day average), 30 (30-day average)
85 (30-day average)
45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average)
85 (30-day average)
Oii and Grease (mg/l)10 (maximum)
pH (s.u.)6. 5 -9. 0 (minimum-maximum)
1 2,000 (7 -day average), 6.000 ( 3 0-day average )
Total Residual Chlorine (mg/l)
Table 7
Specific Limitations for the Dit.!3lgu of Wastes
Parameter 7-Day Average 30-Dry Average fnstantaneous
trt[aximum,
BOD5 a5 mg/l 30 mg/l NA
TSS, mechanical plant 45 mg/l 30 mgil NA
TSS, aerated lagoon 110 mgll 75 mgfl NA
TSS, non-aerated lagoon 160 mgil 105 mg/l NA
BOD, Percent Removal 85%
TSS Percent Removal 8s%
Totai Residuai Chlorine 0.5 mg/l
pH 6.0-9.0 su range
Oil and Grease 10 mg/l
Proposed Blue Creek Ranch':W:WTP'
Preliminary Eflluent Limits for Discharge !qi!e
BOD' (mdl)
BOD5 (percent removal)
TSS (mg/l)
TSS (percent removal)
Fecai Coliform (organisms/100 ml)
PELs Page 14 of 15
0.5 (maximum)
Draft
t
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield Counfy
t
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
The procedure for Selection of Fecal Coliform Limitations Permit Conditions specifies that the 7-
day average limit must be calculated as two times the 30-day average limit'
Note that limitations for ammonia were not necessary for this facility because the assimilative
capacity of the receiving water, as discussed in Section IV, is large enough to establish totai
ammonia effluent concentrations for all months at 30 mg/I. Because treated sanitary sewage effluent
is not expected to have a total ammonia concenfration greater than 30 mg/l, no additional allocations
were determined as per WQCD procedure.
VIII. References
Colorado Total Maximum Daily Load and Wasteload Allocation Guidance, CDPHE' WQCD,
November 1991.
Classification and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River
(Ptanning Region l2), Regulation No. -33, CDPHE, WQCC, November 30, 1999'
The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface lYater, Regulation -rl, CDPHE, WQCC,
November 8,2000.
procedurefor Setection of Fecal Coliform Limitations Permit Conditions, CDPHE, WQCD,
t976.
Regulations for Effluent Limitations, Regulation 62, CDPHE, WQCC, November 9' 1998.
CD1S Summart of Rationale General Permitfor Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities that
Discharge to Receiving Waters with a Chronic Low Flow:Design Flow Ratio of 100:1 or
Greater, CDPS Permit COG-584000, Statewide, CDPHE, September 14,1994.
t
t
PELs Page 15 of 15 Draft
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
Authority Letter
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
3
T
I
Page 20
Aoolication Attachment 6
T
t
t
I
I
T
t
I
t
t
t
T
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
liltxoRtvER
Co,upnNrcs
,droCRAND RtvER DRrvE/ N.E. - ADAI M tc,Htc,AN 4gJo, - PHoNL 6r6.6&.gz7oOk t866.5oz9z7o - f ,+x &6.682286o - Moetrt 66.58t6ooo - EMetL msjr@iseru.net
JzoCouNry Ro AD r@ - CARBoNDALE/ CoLoRADo 8r6zj - PaoNt 97o.zo4.9ooz - EAX 97o.7o4.9oo6 - Motttt 1866.5oz6ooo
June 7, 2001
Colorado Depaftment of Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246
RE: Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is the Fee Simple title owner of a parcel of land in Garfleld
County, Colorado consisting of approximately 82 acres known as Blue Creek Ranch
to be developed as a forty (40) lot subdivision, described on Exhibit "A". A copy of
the deed vesting title of the site propety in the Applicant is attached hereto as
Exhibit *A". With respect to the wastewater plant treatment facilities to be installed
as a part of this development, the undersigned ceftified as follows:
1. A site on Blue Creek Ranch consisting of approximately 0.33 acres will
be made available for the wastewater treatment facility. The site and
facilities constructed thereon will be conveyed to a homeowners
association (Blue Creek Ranch Homeowners Association) to be formed.
2. A homeowners association will be formed to further the interests of
Blue Creek Ranch lot owners, including the operation of the
wastewater treatment facilities and the hiring of a manager for such
operations. Pursuant to protective covenants to be recorded against
Blue Creek Ranch, the association will be charged with the obligation
to operate the system, including the hiring of a Colorado Department
of Health certified operator, adoption of a budget and collection of fees
to cover operation and maintenance costs of the system.
Very truly yours,
Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC
ming, Jr.
DEVELzP .tEN'rLand Planning 81. D esign - CoNsnuc'noNk*idenrial 8l Commercial - REAL EITATI. SERVtcEs ksidencial A Commercial
IAN Ds cA P N c Landscape Archi rrcru re, Rerai I El Wholsale
Member
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
t
T
t
t
I
I
I
fited ior recoril rllc
-day
uf-A.D._, at--_erctqck_tl R€COROER
Reception No._By DEPUIY
WARRANTY DEEI)
'lllts DEED, Hadc on (lris day o, Scptcnrb€t 28, 2000
berveen wtLLiA[rJ clLt.loANANDlffi
ot the Cosry af
0 L U E r--ii,-EEKTINDJTb-i5iNcs r -. L c
.nd State oi lllioors
-_,
of the Gcantor(5),
LIABILITY CONiIIIT-_
Hhose Iegat address is
of rhe
:- l9lJl iIIGHWAY 82. CARBONDAI.E. CO Ei62l
_ county of CARFIEI-D and State of ,C()l()rild(r -,
of the Oranlee(s):
WI'I'NESS, Ihat tha Granto.(s), for 8nd in consideration o, the sun oi ( l{ ll2.5uoU0 )
r" F(trr( t\tillkrr 'l'lrrcc llultrl(Ed Twclvc 'l llrustttd Fivc llundrctl xlrd 0O/ 1 0u "'
shalt be appticabte to ail genders.
lN WITNb-SS \\llEREOl' the Grantor(s) ha6 xecur ed th i s deed lf -t.h
STAIE OF
Ihe foregging tns(fuilcnt kas ocxnoHtcdge.l l,efore nE on thls daY oi
by wll.l-lAfl l-!lLtIi{11 {ND ,AYNU lvl Q!!.t l(i{N
IXJLI.ARS
lhe receipr and sufficiency of Bhich is hereby ackno{tedged, has geanteo, brrgained, sotd and conveved, and by these
prerents dces grant, bargain, seil, convey and confirm uto the Grantee(s), his heirs and asslgns forever, alI the
ieat property, together rith iltprovemenls, il any, situaie, tying and being in the .__.-- county of
(iARFllll.l) and state of coiorado, described as fo(lors:
SEE-E-x-t'it str A "TmA c tmE tt un gro .{ N D r I A D E A PA R'l' li ER EoF
also t^oen as 5treet nurbdr ll20 COTJNTY ROAD l{}O CARtsONDALE. CO El6Z-}
TO(;ETllER rith.ll an.J singutar and hereditasrents and apgrrtenances there!o betonging, or in anyrise aPPertalning
and the tcversion and reversions, temainder and rmainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; anJ att the estata, right
iltte interest, c(alm and demand rhatsoever oi rhe crantor(s), eitlrer in lats or equity, ot, in and to the above bargaitrEd
premises, xith rhe neredirments and aPPur(enanc€5;' 'l'O IiAVE ANI)1D IlOl-D the said prerrises above borgarned ard described rith aPpurtenences, urto the 6rantee(5),
his heirs ald assigns tor.ever, The Orantor(s), for himselr, his heirs arld personal rePresentatives, does covenant, 9lant,
bargain, an(l agree ro and cith the Gran(ee(s), his heirs ancl assigns, thal at thc time of the ensealing and detlvery
of itresi p.u..ntr, he is vett seir,ed of the piernises above conveyed, has good, sure, Periect, ab6otuie end indeteasibte
esrEre oi inheritance, in tar, in fee simpte, aryl has good right, futt Porer and tariut authority to grant, bargain,
selt and convey the saore in nEmer and fornr as aforesaid, and lhat the s&oe are iree and cleal from all iorflrer and gther
grants, batgairrs, sales, i iBns, tares, assessrnents, encwbrances dnd res(.ictions ol Hharevee kind oT nature soever,
ExgEpr otiNERAL r.{xEs rlrr issessr.ieN Is FoR TliE yEAR 1000 AND suBsLQtttlN l' \'EARS. ANt) ExcEP'l rtlosE NIA'I-TERJ As
SET IiORTII(]N EXIIII}IT "g' ATT.\(:III]I) IIERETO.{ND INCORPORATETJ IIEREIN tsI'RtsFERENCE
Ihe G.anror(s) slratt and rit( ltAtlANI AllD fOREVER 0EfEllo the above brargalntsd Pr-emises in the quiet and Peaceabie
possession of the Grantee(s), his heirs orrd ossigns, against att and every Person or persons laklutty clajoring rhe Hhote
L..ny p"r, rtrereof. Ifie singutar nrrrber shail include the pturat, and the Pturai (he singula., and the use of ar\y gender
Ih 6bove.ie.t ri
,ft)
WlLl-lAt\l i Cll.
Hame ard A,ldress of Pe.son c..ating tleyty cceated LegaI Description ( ]8'15-106.5, c.R.s.)
rly cLililr ss i on e^pi .ei i t 9/ o y
grtncss ary hrnd und otalI,rA( seat.fu-,'l/*,Llora.y Pubt ic
I E:crorfl u.]54 i55
I li,t"l c!,21,1155
I tolrn tto. yl2 nev
tJhen Recorded [eturn
UARRANTY DEED (Photograpnlc Record !J0,OPEll)94
)
)
SEU{crrbcr 28. 20U0
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
t
t
I
T
T
I
t
l
I
I
T
I
EXHIBIT A
A PARCEL 08 LAI{D SITUATED IN THE [.'NITED STATES GOVERN}TENT LOTS 1 , 2, 6 , 'I , IL
AND THE NORT}IEAST QUARTER SOT'THWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOW}JSHIP 7 SOUTH,
R}'NGE 87 WES'I' 09 THE SIXI'H PRI}ICIPAL HERIDIA.}I, CARITELD COTINTY, COLOR.A.DO, SAID
PARCEL IS LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHHAY TIO, 82, EASTERI.Y OF
GARFIEI.D COI'NTY ROAD IOO AIID NORTHERLY OF 1'HE DEI.IVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTER}.I
RAILROAD RIGIIT-OP.tiAY, AND IS UORE SULI,Y DESCRIDED AS FOTLOHS:
COI.fI.IEI.ICING AT AHE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER O? SAID GOVERNT{ENT LOT 2, SECTION ]I,
TIiEIICE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 55'02x BAST, A DISTANCE Ot 1197.02.FEET TO THE
I}I1'I:RSECTION OA SAID COUNTY ROAD 1OO !:ASl'ERLY RTGHT-OF.W}.Y WITIT 1'iIE SOUTHERLY
RIGIIT.OF.WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82, THE TRUE POIIIT OF BECI}{NING;
TllEl{CE EASTERLY ALONG SAID STATE HIGHWAY SOUTIIERLY RIGIIT-08-l{AY T}lE POLLOWINGT
NORTII 81 DEGREES O1'O5X EAST, A DISTANCE OF ?.29 EEET TO THE POSTTION FOR
COLORIDO DEPARTMENI' OF TRTNSPORTATION (CDOT), HO}{UI.IENT 529 OA PROJECT NO.
CX(FC) 2{.0082.26 (HISSING), (SAID POINT IS I,IARKED BY A WITNESS CORN8R
!iONITME}II, A 5/AI STEEL ROD HI'TH YELLOI{ PLASTIC CAP MARKED BUETTNER 1]166 HC, AT
A I)ISTANCE OF NORTH 81 DEGREES OI'O5II EAST, 2.OO FEET rROH THE CDOT MONI'}{EIIT
POSITION, SAID WITNESS CORI'sR MONUI'IEIIT IS LOCATED AT THE BASE OP A WIRE
FENCE),
T}IENCE NORTH d1 DEGREES O1'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OP 120,91 FEET TO A CDOT
MONTJMENT 530 OT SAID CDOT PROJECT;
THENCE NORTII 72 DEGREES OI'13U EAST, A DTSTAI{CE O8 I88.81 PEET TO T}IE CDOT
MOIJI'MENT 531 t)8 SAID PROJECT;
THENCE SOUTII 8{ DEGREES {3'Istr EAST, A DISTANCE OP {01.15 FEET TO THE CDOT
I.IONU}TI'NT 5]2 (MISSING NOW M}RKED WITH A 5/8U STEEL ROD A}TD YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
MARKED B('I:TTNER 13155}, OE SAID PROJECT;
.TITEIICEI SOUTH 7II DECREES ]O' {ON EAST, A DISTANCE OF 382.98 F[:gT TO A WIRE rEUCE
CORNER;
,IIIENCE DEPARTING SAID STATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH OO DECREES 35'23N WEST, A
oISTANCE OF I83{.jl rEEl'ALO}tc A WIRE FENCE TO A FENCE CoRNERT
TIIENCE SOUTTI 89 DEGREES }5']8tr EAST, A DISTANCE OF 23],.{5 FEET TO A PENCE
CORNER;
THENCE SOUTH OO DEGREES lOI {2il EAST A DISTANCE OF EAST, A DISTANCE ()8 ?85.71
FEET ALOIIC A I{IRE FE}ICE TO A INTERSECTTON WITH THE DE}{VER AND RIO GRANDE
WESI'ERI{ RAILROAO NOR'THERLY RIGHT.OP-WAY, SAID POIliT OP IIITERSECTION BEING
t{ITIIIN THE RoARINC FORK RIVERT
THE}ICE I{ES'TERLY ALONG SAID }IORTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT-O8-WAY, tsEING LOCATED
l'JITtlrN THE RoARrNc FORK RMn THE SOLLO!|INGT
SOUTII 8O DECREES Z7I4!X HEST, A DISTANCE OP 230.?] EEET;
SOUT}I 83 DEGREES {5'38N HEST, A DISTANCE OF 96.97 FEET,
SOUTH 8,I DEGREES I]I.I]ff WEST A DISTANCE OF 99.20 FEET;
SOI'T}I 8{ DEGREES 12'11il WEST, A DISTANCE OE 99-7{ FEET,
SOUTI{ 84 DEG}iEES !,EST, A DISTANCE Or 99 .08 FEET;
SOU'TII 8{ OEGREES 1''{5il IIEST, A DISTANCE OP 103,09 FEET;
SOUTH 8{ DEGREES O5I1{" I{EST, A DISTANCE OF 97.{1 FEET;
SOUTH 8{ DEGREES WEST, A DISTANCE O8 1OO.7O FEET;
SOUrlI 84 DEGREES 53I3{U WE.ST, A DISTANCE OF 95.53 FEET;
SOUTTI 86 DEGREES 56'1{N HESf, A DISTANCE OF 9].51 FEET,
NOR'I'H 89 DEGREES ]5'50il HEST, A DISTA.}ICE OP 93.75 PEET;
NORTH 85 DEGREES 2I'01'' IiEST, A DISTANCE OP 9{.{5 PEET,
NORTfl 8? DEGRSES 59'{]' I{ES.[, A DISTANCE OR 9{.93 REET;
NORTH 79 DEGREES 59'{3N WEST A DISTANCE OF 95.2{ PEET;
NORTH 77 DEGREES 11,12" WES,!, A DISTANCE OF 97.0{ I'EET;
}IOR1'H ?7 DEGREES I9'56N TJEST, A DISTA.}ICE OF 99.76 FEET;
NORTH 77 DEGREES 10' 15tr HEST, A DISTANCII OF 85.35 PEET TO A INTERSECTTON WI'!H,fHE EASTERLY RTGHT-OF-I{AY OF GARPIELD COIJN?Y ROAD 1OO;
THENCE NORTIIERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGII'T.OE-WAY THE FOLLOWI}IG COURSES A}ID
CURVES :
TIIENCE NORTII 36 DEGRI]ES 1O' ]8'' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 92. ]? FEE'!;
T}IENCE ALONG A CURVE TO tHE LEFT 1{5.85 PEET, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE DEIT{G3{O.27 8EET, THE CEIITRAL ANGLE IS 2{ DEGREES 33' ]7N, T}iE CURVE LONG CHORD
BEAI(S llORTtI 2{ DEGREES 21' tgn EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1{{.?5 FEET,
THENCE }IOR'IIi 12 D!:GREES 07 ' OO X EAST, A DTSTANCE OF 1{ 90 . OO FEET;
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
EXHIBIT A
THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO TITE LEFT 295.07 PEET, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEIIIG1'152.39 FEET, THE CENTRAL ATiGLE rs 11 DEGREES to, oo!', THE cuRvE Lolic cHoRD
EEARS NORTH 06 DEGREES EAST, A DISIATICE OF 295.57 FEET;
THENCE NORTH OO DEGREES 30' {8N EAST, A DISTANCE OF 72'',55 FEET TO THE TRUE
PC I}IT OF BEOI}I}IING .
COU}ITY OF GARI'IELD
STATE OP COLORADO
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
T
I
t:xiltBt'l'u
RlGl{'i oF t'i,(opRlETOR OF A VEIN OR t.Ol)t'to Ex,rRACl.ANt) RFI\t(lVE llls oREl HERtil;RoNl sllotJL.l) 'l'llB sAlvlli BE t,0uNl) 'l'o l,tiNi:'tRr\'il1 ()lr tN'l'BRSIic.t,l.ltE
PREN'llsE5^ As RESERvED It'l tJNlrEl) s't-A't Es t,A'l'ENl' RECotar)Et) A*gus( I l.
t89-t. tN t()()K ll AT t,A(iti.l 1.] ANt) ltECotal)ht) ITEIIRUARy 19. t9t5 tN troor
7 I A-l' l'.{(.;t: b(}J.
RlGil1 0t- wAY FOlt Dl'ICilES 0R CANAT_S COt.lSl RUC"l Et) By 'l ltE At,.t.il()Rt.t\. oti ruEt)Nl]'Ijt) slA'l l]s AS Rllslrt(\'Et) il..I t,Nll't:t) s'l'A'lt:s l,Al'EN'l l{:('oRDt:D AtJ(it-ts'l'll.
I89{, IN BOOK I2 A1'P.{CE ]]] AND TIECOITDED FEBRUARY I'. I9I5 IN tsOOK7I A'I PAGE 60:I,
tAstiNlt:N.t's ANt) til(iltrs oF wAy As (ill^f,l'tEI)'to lt()t..',L-ROSS EI-tic-l'RlC tN
INS'l'Rt.lt'lEN'f RE(-ORt)ED t,;EBRtJARy t2. 1971, tN ltOOK.l27 At.t,AOt:292 At{t)
RLCOtU)[tJ o(]'l'()liliR .l(), trEl lN tx)oK b59 A,t. t,A(;L l6u
HASHNIEN'l s ANI) RlGlll's ot; wAY As (iiiAN'tED 'lu R()cKY I\t()UN'l'AlN NA't't/ltAt- G.\slN INS'lllt,NlEN'l RECOltl)El) 0("t'Ottt:R l,r, l9(rt lN U(X)K ll7,\'t t,A(iti 2J(r
llAsllNlti-N]'s AND Rlclll's ol: w..\Y Fol{ r)lt,Et-lNu AS ('()N'l AlNut) lN tNs't l{utrtEN't'RECOttt)[t) ],lAIl(:il l,t, t962 tN uooK l4i] {1.pA(;t: 16
ItE.sl Rl("llVt: ('ovENAt',11'S. \vlll('lt D() No'r CoNl'AtN r\ FoRFlIt'tlRE ot{ l(trvIR tER( t-Allsli. lltl l oNtl'l'rlN(; ANY (:ovliNANl ot( Rt:s'lRlt"t'toN lJr\.st:D ()N ltA( t:( oL.olt. l{til l(;loN, iiEX. ll,\Nl)l('AP. lrANtt[,tAt. slA l'L]S olr NA I'toN;\t. oul(ilNtlNl-tiss,\Nt) oNl.\'Tol'lltiEX'l t:Nl"ttl.\'l's^r\tl)covIlNAN'f (,r) tstiXt]trll,'t tJNt)El{( llr\l'l'lilt'll sl:("l l()t'l 1607()lj IIllitlNl't'l:l)s'l A'il:s('(/t)L()t(rIrl([:l A.l l:s'l()llr\Nl)l( /\l'[llJ'l'l)OtiS N()'l l)lS(lil]rltN,\'l t:n (i,\lNS't tlANt)t('z\l,t,t:l) I'l:trS()NS ,\S('Ol.l l'.,\lNt:l) lN lN5'l lltlNlEN'l ltll(1Jltl)El) r\prrl ()7. 1969. tN tr()OK .lol A t'1,,\(it:
28
'lEl{NlS ( Ol{l)l'l lONS A},lD I'ltOVlSlONS oF ll;\StllvlEN'f ,\(;ttl:t:Ntl:N'l ttU(tot{l)t:D Aprrl
12, 198() lN lt()OK 5.17 A1'PA(lt:2b{.
Al-l- r\(('t:ss Rl(;lllsl'o lll(;llwAY N() ril AS ('()N't AtNLi) tN t(tJl.ir ANt) olil)t:tiItl:t.l()lit)l:lr l:litJl{UARY 28, 1995 lt.l UOOK 9t.i Al l,A(iU 775.
E,{sE}'lE}'lTS AND Rlc}11's oF wAY Fr)P. IIE BASTN Dlt'C}t ANI)'illu },llt)DLE DtTClt
AND ALI- I.ATERALS TTIEREOF,
EASEIVIEN'IS AND RlClll'S ()F W.{y FOR LOUN'l'\, ROAD 100.
8ASEN,lEN I'S. RIGIIl'S OF WAY AND OT}IER MA'I'TERS AS SITOWN OI.1 IIIS SIJRVEY I'I,A'IDAIE,D AUGUST 27, 2OOO PREPARII} 3Y LOUIS BUITTNIR
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
REPORT ATTACHMENTS
TABLE 1
Table 1 - Blue Creek Ranch Water Requirements
Page 21
(oc{
^iY[!
ut
u.
ullJ
d)
v.a
uJ
oc
4;
0)
G
o
od
soc6o
C6
N
o
(o
o
3r-o{;9
6 9X0li"_
<9Ed3.oGo-
o; ocro3b:Ei3
co(oN<o9e?a?qa€o(o€ci ;c.i "i:P:PP+;ci
NO)O|r)N(,t=o)@@Nc{FF(rrF-(,)l.e)F-(')(ON-ci ooci-c.ioi--ocic;
$; e,
tt
e E5ooF -9.
o
;of
o
G
=
oI
o
E-cocr.=tr=(UE
-too-Yt'
=EbE6E
=E6s(t
e
Eo
IJJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
E E:Eo c o-o(EE l o(!
o
E.Oooo^ourqq9tsc
=olr)lr)^iN.YFN-\ruloF
6X'-. .= o >.E EHPo !l E o-o)t 3 aa.a
XUI oQLU6:: O^qcErxx:ecD=ooo!!
E = A O 6:c c o o oo-oc.>.>'EoTL<JJ:<
o
o
s
li
Go
oo
o
(u
E
ri
CDr
"lgl
c
E
trXAY
4 H.t ;e6ClOulooo
Olr)O\oO\o,.r,'j9fi3F
Nr-
a e- 9LU p6 dE"85.,9
EEIE€E; 9; o.9.9
sAEE:E*o69=EocLs)6ed:tt*ttto-i<
E.aul
YIgel
:o O ro O)liiRR:
I
!oo-g)
ol
?t
tra
#-qfi$
qqo(r)tr)
E.gl
cl-6lo
oi
:l
o-toto
a So EIU :E HE0( a f eE
E8[H€E
f;EflE;g
==.=frlDDEaaa[! uJ ttJ
O()Oqc!o
q=
c-
,-9.93:q
iEoXoo
=Ek<LrJ
ccc(0
666otLLtL do o o E_oootr c.E,E,E56aaaot
tr
E'F 3^
^d =€ N o N(ot- (oN t--(o r(o NN-Or'r OooOoooOoooo-
=
E g o c, d ci o c, ci d o o o c,
o
OtLO-r)-()lr)-r)rOoooF(o-(o(o-(o-@qqeqq(oqqqeqq
.9 or
o=t
E€Ho:va:
gs!.iss rgg3EE
t =/( qE
o
oNI
:l
:ll
"11c1
toJl
i
"ll
=il
o
c1.ll
-)*lrl
-rl"ll
.il-t.'ll
ri
lctl
"ll
i
ollqtl
itl
Iotlqli
-'.+P o o oo o, @o)o)@ ol 6 o)*Y!.-i NNNNNNNNNNNNv...9I q c o q q o I q o q q oJo.:} oooooooooooo
o
^9 E A o o o o N cD e o) (r - - os 6 6 o q q r a q @ o \ q a?'. q-o-o-G ooooooooooooo-
IJJ
EOa
^oEE oooNr<torl)(osooo(J (l,'. oO ON @ OOrc.'lO (r) OO-E3E oodc;;6i--;oooo!o
OO)OOO\oO)qqccqBq
-C!OTOON-N-
oETq R&RRRRRRR&RR
-.i!?o OOOOOOOOOOOO-JEg oocioooooocicto
o
SEEi SBPqbqERBE=8
-n- ELo OOOOOOOoOOoo
ul
E
E O^
^,QEf oooo(o(oro.ovsoo
=9
g6 oq q.:'. aa? oq\ c\ I q
-E.='l9 oooo-rroooooo!o
E'- 0)
^HBa oooooooooooooao,i oooooooooooo-E : g ci ci ct o d ci ci cj c' ci o o6:o
.9o
; 4e (oq)(r) r(r) r (r)(9 F (o r o
-oi=- 6F-(oco6@@@co@@@sr-:o clooooooooooob7g cjc,oooooc'ooooo=
o
PIA €o@NN',o)(o@.o@@@k o a ^i ci +atoi +rrN + ari ci<l! CD Fi--NC)rr61lN
t9 oo+N$eloro)r-(oEo \qqsqqqqc!aoq\F.g. Nt$s(.,rrNFF
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
June 2001
Table 2 - Development Schedule
Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant
Page 22
6t
I
(!F
6
ilr i
6oooo
o-
=.g
o
E,
tr
.glooo
o
E
oo
o
(E
=Eo9;
-(EB=cE
Efl
.J?(/)6
o(J.9oOro-o
I
I
t
T
I
I
T
T
t
t
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
T
T
I Bif"T::?liao,lcn wastewater
June 2001
T
I
Figure 3 - WWTP Location
- Blue Greek Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant and Lift Station
Page 23
FIGURE 3
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
T
I
I
I
I
i
:
s5.!Ls,5!!+
5{tcb
$$
iEt
;ul
,t€
8ts$roa$qEt'
BT6
d=!r-jt:
l,/
PCINT OF
DISCHARGE
BLUE CREEK RANCHWWTP LOCATION MAP
ZANCAN.IIA ANO A.'.'OC/AT|.f, /NC
POSI trFrcE 8OX !9(l - lGt cdPER AIEI-E
OATE:
APR|L 17, 2001
o kq
Is"!,
oo
FIGURE NO.
T
I 3i:""T,.:t'fll?n waste*at",
June 2001
I
Table 3 - Wastewater System Operation and Maintenance Budget.
Page 24
atotu
!g
o
E
aq)
co
Eoaodl
'j=o
=:lU)-o
=A:-
= ro-jEE=96=kEoEf82(l)(l)-
EHEEE.ii .- > (f (/,i6 b E *
E-8 dp.i
: v - G=:O;?--
A -: 8 sEE e- 9.!Es=EE6cEQ-
-o(,F=q:aaaEE-''=oro o= d=Eo"oU609:Qdl^LUqEO (o.h oo I orH ovor.SbI>-c==!YoIEorS
!.!EDoa
H tn o9':= o.c (/) E;&67AFg 3, a.: -*!-* lP;EEiI e I eEbFcoOU)
E e oosoo
CL
tr
oo
N r.- co N N f'- $o)(qof co F- o) @ r'- o l-' \l; c.j 19 - o, o coQql@ 6 6 @ @ @ cotc1l@a
?)lS.JJ[,', nYa o o fo\ o a eeold. o o 16\ o o qqq
id\ 6 o i\o\ o o tq9?@i5i F- lr, \'o1o s !oQ-i=\ ; co \r I ro @ F-(o-\tal @ @ \," Ie,+ Jtae.l\/ \J o 6
!-=(!:
ELL-€--oroS
-:A6 3l:
OsoN
oo.r)@
L
.0)
.a!o
(f)=c oGP6:
=OJJAoo)Uat tu .=S90)(l)€ C()(,^rE(l);5ooo-
tta
ioEoL
o)o-o
Co
(g
a
:
ECo
C(o
o-colz(J
o)l_clc)lol#la
Intl>l-.
I -rzlo)lo)l3
IT
/'/
(
/
I
\\V
II\:\(6\ooo-i.9(E!o
b(go- o)o.co=5E
9o)
-e (I).cEt->a
UFE(,)ac.=lz
LE9stOL)o:E
!2EaL-6=^P
9rz=.!o;7,q=snd-
tll
a
o
Eoo-o
q)
Q)E
o
aL
0)C
Bo
p
(Eo
oEEDsEo
-er
=
l.L
(E
ooo
o
CLxul
EIo
l(l,
IE
t
I
+,o
cnE'
-J
trl
o
C)?-(E
?-ote-.E
=tte-(E
e
ot-*,
(El-o
CLo
tr-o+,o
U'
Lo*.(E
=o+,o(E
=
rt
IIJJ
m
F
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 2001Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
I
I
T
I
|l
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
lr
l:
lr
lr
lr
l:
APPENDIGES
APPENDIX A
Manufactures' and Equipment Information
1) church & Associates, lnc. letter dated November 15, 2000.
2l Information on existing facilities from the lnternet
Page 25
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
November 15,2000
Robert M. Cumming Jr.
19351 Highway 82
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Onsite Wastewater System Evaluation
Ranch at Roaring Fork
Garfield County, Colorado
Job No. i3280
Dear Rob,
As requested through Tom Zancanella, we are providing preliminary information for a 20,000 gallons per
day (GpD) Recirculating Filter System (RFS) for the proposed Ranch at Roaring Fork Project. The
information is to be.rr"J* a part of an Application for Site Approval for a 50 equivalent residential unit
development.
per our site visit on October 26. ZOOO, the RFS is to be located in the western portions of the development
area. There are several areas being considered. The preiiminary information being provided is to assist in
locating and defining the size of the proposed wastewater treatment system'
The typical area needed for a 20,000 GPD treatment system of a RFS is presented on the attached Figure
1. This includes the recirculation tank, recirculation pumps, gravel field and appurtenant piping. Not
included are up-gradient septic tanks and piping nor down-gradient oioing and disinfection prior to
discharge to the river. Alternatives for septic tanks include individual septic tanks at individual homes,
clustered septic tanks, or a single large septic tank near the recirculation tank.
For planning purposes, the cost of the RFS treatment unit as presented on Figure is estimated at 58.00
perireated gallon or $160,000.00. This includes equipment, excavation and labor costs. As the project
proceeds, the costs can be refined. The most significant factor for this site is believed to be shailow ground
water in the spring. The impact will dictate design consideration of the recirculation tank and the elevation
of the recirculation field.
DENVEB 4501 Wadsworlh Boulevard Wheat Rldge, CO 80033
303.463.9317 Fax:303.463'9321
oASTLE ROCK 303.660.4358
EVERGBEEN 303.816.1455
LovELAND 970.663.2124
CHURCH & Associates, lnc-
ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Recirculating Filter SYstem
JobNo.13280
Page2
If you have questions or if we may be of further service, please call.
,O.l-t r^\'
./ -.// i ), ./( '.-:-.1-*-:--g
Edwird O. Church,
EOC
3 copies sent
Copy to Zancanella & Associates
1005 CooPer Avenue
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81602
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
Sincerely,
CHURCH &
9o-
s:
Ylp 3-
-,o-^cb.\ ooo =
=E E
Ls t
sS
-o
50ca
€
:.-:q
6S
o
^a
oo
lh
I
sz
=oZ.^,6tuE+<o>Eq6o<^qoN--N'.rt I?=e =sE r$oHR S=6 6?
+F+Jqoq+:=ru6o19600Fvv
o
.9
f
I
l
{
SE:SE5 t !oM) e*& R edE E ',f,d-
d d e<q q
-
\
e
e(g
q)
E
o
c?a
tJ-U)E
LU
o)
'=
(o:c
c)q)a
=s,*6
q-co5\ss5<
ook>
I
I
-(-
f
3
l-lL
ao*(5
rf)
lrJ
{
(5
=a
o
I
I
e
lruui sE
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
T
I
I
E'IcLlcnl
ic)l(=)c)
Cr
C\I
I
E:
C)
U))-.u.)
q)
=:ir:
cr)c:
oJ
=lC)
'45
o)
s=
:
-l.--r
I
-s
co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I nnov ativ e O nsite Wastew ater
Products and Services
1-888-560-3334
[': m te np: n i lies '
SCG Case StudY
Sand Filter with Shallow Trenches:
In Octobe r 1997 an intermittent sand filter, followed by shallow trenches, was installed at a
home in Fairplay, Color'ado to repair a failing system'
The new residence was originally served by a septic tank and drain field bed installed in May
lgg;.When the first systei quiclrty failed, a new, larger drain field bed was added' Within
months, the repair system had failed'
Percolation test
results found the
upper 18 inches of
soil had a
percolation rate
averaging26
minutes per inch
MPD. At a dePth of
3.5 to 4.0 feet, the
percolation rate was
greater than 24O
MPI.
An intermittent
sand filter sYstem
was installed to Pre-
treat the sand filter
eflluent, removing
organic material
thlt may lead to bio-matting and decreased absorption capacity in the d-tln field' Shallow'
chamber-type, pressure dosid trenches were installed to receive the sand filter eflluent' The
sand filter and drain field trenches have less than one foot of cover'
During the last two years we have periodically visited the site to monitor the system's
performance. with .r.ry visit we found there was no ponding on the sand lilter or in the drain
iield trenches. The sand filter eflluent has been clear and odorless'
please feel free to contact our oflice for more information on this system and our experience
with sand filters at high altitudes and cold climates'
I http :iiwww. scgenterprises. com/sandfi lter. html 9128100
actexru Ftlter"
[: n te !'F ri *es.
raBv t vL L
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
Innovativ e Onsite Wastew ater
Products and Services
1-888-s60-3334
SCG Case StudY
Orenco@ Recirculating AdvanTex"' Filter:
In Novemb er 1999 an innovative new onsite technology was placed into operation at the Abbey
of St. walburga in virginia Dale, colorado. Groundwater discharge requirements dictated
il;"ffi;; il r"pti.Iank efllue., ,.--9llil fi"ld,t,Dgqlq
limited space available at the site,
the desire for a low-Profile, non-
obtrusive, and low-maintenance
system, a recirculating
AdvanTextt Treatment SYstem
was chosen.
The 3000 gallon Per daY (GPD)
system consists ofa sePtic tank
followed bY a recirculation tanlc
Two pumps in the recirculation
tank periodically dose septic tank
eflluent to the AdvanTex" filt""t
for treatment. The treated
eflluent flows to a PumP tank for -
dosing to a gravetliss drain field with Infiltrator@ chambers.
i1'h" Adn"nTe*"n' filters are developed and manufactured by
Orenco Systems@ Inc.
The filters consist of "textile coupons" with inherent
froperties that make them excellent for aerobic treatment of
iast"wat"r. A typical surface area application rate is 20 GPD
per square foot of media.
permitting Authority: Larimer counry and co State Hcaltlt Departmcnts
Project Engineer: JR Engineenng
lnstaller: Left Fland Excavaung
Please feel free to contact our olfice for more information on
http ://www. scgenterprises. com/orenco2. html 9128100
r'LgbvLvL-
T
I
Please feel free to contact our office for more information on
this system and our experience with textile media filters at
high altitudes and cold climates.
The AdvanTex* Treatment System is covered by U.S. patent numbers 5.980,7481 5.531.894; and 5'492'635
Addrtional Patents Pendtng.I
Ll
lr
lr
lr
l:
lr
l:
lr
- Suppliers - Engineers - Case Studies - Links -
Contact SCG
9128100http ://www. scgenterprises. com/orenco2' html
rage r or r
Innov ativ e O nsite lVastew ater
Products and Services
1-888-560-3334
{:m te rgr riSe$'
SCG Case StudY
20,000 GPD Recirculating Sand Filter:
During the Spring of tgig a 20,000 gallon per day (GPD) recirculating sand filter was placed
into operation to serve the Boy Scouts of America, Camp Alexander in Lake George, Colorado'
With a surface discharge
to a "Gold Medal Stream"
- the South Platte River,
the recirculating sand
filter technologY was
chosen for its high
treatment caPabilities and
its minimal oPeration and
maintenance
requirements.
During the summer of
l999 the system's
treatment performance was excellent with effluent testing showing an average BOD( and TSS
of less than 10 mgfl and an average ammonia of less than 2 mg/I.
Permitting Authority: Park County and colorado State Healtlt Departments
project Eigineer: Stewart Envirorunental Consultants, Inc. - Tom Norman. P.E.
System Installer: Remedial Solutrons' lnc'
please feel free to contact our ofiice for more information on this system and our experience with sand
filters at high altitudes and cold climates.
HA* - nbo,rt SCG rwhut t N"* - Suppliers - Engineers - Case Studies - Links -
T
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I http ://www. scgenterprises. com/gpd. html
Contact SCG
9128100
Below is a tist of companies in Colorado that carry SCG
I
t
I
I
t
T
t
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I nnovativ e Onsde Wastewate r
Praducts and Servtces
,€E&560-.3lxl4
E:ntterpl'ise5,
Supplier
Grand Junction PiPe and SuPPIY
Colorado SPrings Winwater
Firebaugh Precast
Plastics, lnc.
The Plumbing Store, lnc.
Bowman Construction ComPanY, lnc.
CPS Distributors, lnc.
Expert PiPing SuPPIY
Great Westem PiPe and SuPPIY Co.
Colorado PiPe and SuPPIY
Waterworks Sales ComPanY
Kemp and ComPanY
Kamen SuPPIY Co. lnc.
Dodson Engineered Products
Big R Manufacturing & Distributing
Westem Pipe SuPPIY
Colorado Precast
True Value Hardware
Copeland Concrete, lnc.
Enterprises' products
Address
740 Highway 133
5595 East Bijou Street
3090 East Las Vegas
6255 Dexter Street
50 No. BroadwaY
2310 South SYracuse WaY
4275 Forest St.
3601 East 39th
3860 Forest St.
4000 York Street
4295 Keamey Street
P.O. Box 189
P.O. Box 2043
P.O. Box 248
P.O. Box 1290
1841 Boston Avenue
1820 SE 14th Street
276 South Lena Street
28803 HighwaY 6
Gity
Carbondale
Colorado Springs
Colorado Springs
Commerce CitY
Cortez
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Denver
Edwards
Ft. Collins
Glenwood SPrings
Greeley
Longmont
Loveland
Ridgeway
Rifle
Telephone
(970) e63-5700
o19) s72-0800
o1e) 392-e036
(303) 289-2ss7
(s70) s6s-6052
(303) 6s6-8960
(303) 394-6040
(303) 321-8000
(303) 320-4440
(303) 292-1s48
(800) 336-613s
(s7o) 926-3770
(970) 493-0982
(970) e45-2233
(303) 893-E480
(303) 651-es12
(s70) 669-0s35
(970) 626-5717
(800) 400-1132
I
I
t
I
I
T
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
"About SCG EnterPrises, Inc."
[:n te rF !'i*rs,
The Fort Restaurant
Berthoud Pass Ski Area
Buffa].o Bi]'I Muser:nt
TOTAI Service Stations
CalP lJ.iurn
http ://www. scgenterprises. con/about. html
Moffat ElementarY
Peyton ElementarY
Sedal-ia ElernentarY
CONOCO Stations
Western Conwen.ience
I nnov ative Onsite Wastew ater
Products and Services
1-888-560-3334
About SCG EnterPrises, Inc.
SCG Enterprises has provided Onsite Wastewater System products and services to over 1000
residential homes and over 30 commercial facilities including schools' camps' Iodges'
convenience stores, gasoline service stations, and restaurants.
SCG Enterprises is the Colorado distributor for Orenco Systems@ Incorporated (OSI); a
research, engineering, and manufacturing firm dedicated to the development and production of
the highest {uality wastewater treatment products at the most reasonable price. OSI's product
Iine includes the proSTEptn'septic tank elfluent pumping system, sand filter packages'
recirculating filter systems, and flow distribution equipment.
SCG Enterprises is the Colorado distributor for the Nibbler@ wastewater treatment system;
specializing in the treatment of high-strength wastewater typical of restaurants' supermarkets'
meat processing plants, and bakeries. The Nibbler Lite@ employs the patented Nibbler process
for light commercial flows, and the Nibbler Jr.@ provides treatment to residential or smaller
commercial flows.
SCG Enterprises services include evaluation of existing systems and consultation to design
engineers with respect to high strength waste considerations and distribution system design'
W! also perform comptiance monitoring, and workshop training, as well as installation,
operation, and maintenance serices.
Representative Proj ects
Page I ot 2
Sacred Hea
Chief Hosa
Hog Heawen
Titan Indu
Pine. Enter
9128100
'
I
raBc z oL L
OtBrienIsPine Creek Cookhouse Canp AJ"exander
HrE-AbruI-SgG-What'sNew-Suppliers-Engineers-CaseStudies-Links-
Contact SCG
http :i/www. scgenterprises. com/about. htrnl 9128100
ffi
T
rage I ot z
I
I
I
I
l
l
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
t
I
I
I nnovative O nsite Wastevt ater
Products and Sertices
1-888-5 60-3334
[in te rp: nitics.
Jefferson CountY SamPles I.S-D.S
once againo SCG Enterprises accompanied Jefferson county Department of Health and
Environment personnel during the week of December 13, 1999 while sampling onsite
wastewater sYstems.
Several onsite wastewat6r systems have been
installed in Jefferson County with a Z0-mgll
total nitrogen compliance limit. Three types
of systems have been installed - they include
traditional recirculating sand filters (RSF)'
recirculating sand filters with the sand filter
effluent returned to the first compartment of
the septic tank for denitrification (ST-RSF)'
and Orenco@ septic tank trickling lilters
(TF).
The county has been performing quarterly
sampling on these systems for over two years'
flere are the results for the 11 systems
sampled on SePtember 13, 1999.
The TF system that did not meet the compliance limit has been repaired and scheduled for re'
samplingin March 2000. The RSF system that did not meet the compliance limit has been
converted to a ST-RSF system and was recently re.sampled.
please feel free to contact our olfice for more information on this sampling program and the
types of onsite wastewater system installations'
ro-What,sNew.suppliers.Engineers-CaseStudies.Links-
ItMc Drtlr tith thc trc{Itrtolr Couety Otllt' Of Iledth
http ://www. scgenterprises. com/new. htnrl 9178100
Orenco Systems: Community Collection Systems rage r or I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
: . . : ll.,33 .a;,.Y.tF<$ .gltriirBn.]i .riead{e.
C$llettlsft.'.5y.ste$1s :-.,|'rg,u-r:t List,'
{;knlblrrraa,P.4:br.
CommunitY Collection SYstems
Etfluent Sewers are becoming recognized as the
best solution for collecting and transporting
wastewater in small to mid-sized communities, new
subdivisions, and environmentally sensitive areas'
Effluent sewers are often one'fourth to one-half the
cost of conventional gravity sewers. When properly
designed, they are easy to install and maintain' they
require less costly treatment systems, and their
treated etfluent can be re'used for irrigation.
Orenco's PToSTEPTM Effluent Sewers feature
equipment that is superbly engineered, corrosion
resistant, durable, lightweight, and fully warrantied'
PToSTEPfr Effluent Sewer packages include both
pump collection systems (often called STEP
systems) and gravity collection systems (often
cltteO STEC systems). Design assistance for
engineers is included at no charge. Hundreds of
communities across North America are successfully
collecting and treating their wastewater with
Orenco'i PToSTEPTM Effluent Sewer Systems. For
examples, click on "Case Studies."
I Emuent pumping Systems ] [ Onsite Treatme,nt Syst€ms ] [ Community Collection Systems ]'
t Monitoring and control Devices ] [ About orenco ] [ nsx ttre Experts ]
I Home ] [ Distriuutor Locator ] [ Contactinsoranco ] [ sitettap ] [ searcn ]
coPyright @ 2000 by Orenco Systems, lnc' Terms of Service
lf you have questions or sulgestions about the dovelopment or technology of this websil€, contact our
developmentteam at orenco@f,ishoalthcare.com. lf you need infotmation about Orenco Syst€ms'Products or
services, contact Ot€nco.
http://www. orenco. com/ccs/ccs index.asp 9128100
Jeff Nelson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Bean
Wednesday, June 20,2001 B:04 AM
Jeff Nelson
RE: site application for wwtp at blue creek
Jeff
We are supposed to review the application with an eye toward the water quality issues. i.e. - will this system be able to
meet the parameters established by the CDPHE? Can it be expanded to meet other needs? Should it be connected to
another system, Ranch at Roaring
-Fork?
These are questions that cross over between the engineering and planning
issues, but I would like to have the engineering perspective.
Thanks
Mark
----Original Message----
From:
Sent:
To:
Jeff Nelson
Tuesday, June 19,2001 10:11 AM
Mark Bean
Subject: site application for wwtp at blue creek
mark,
I read through the app. for the wwtp. what exactly did you want from me pertaining to the app.???
Jeff T Nelson
Assistant County Engineer
Garfield County Engineering Department
109 8th st, suite 100c
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
384-501 3
945-1377 ext 4013
j nelson@garfield-cou nty.com
www. g a rf i e I d - co u nty. co m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
CASESTLJffiY
New Minden, Illinois:
The srnallfarming community of Neta Mindcn'
Itknois is amaccing nationwide attennon for itt
Orenco eff.uent sewa and rcircuhting grauel
trtto. tUntE EPA tcstt consistcntll shout
BOD &TSS buek behw 3'0 mg/L
and ammonia nitrogen huek
behw 0.5 mg/L.
Srute Agencies Amazed bY Orenco
;-;F\#
"Between our frm and Tour
distributon we get calk eaq dal
about New Mindcn\ efflucnt scwer
and rccircularing grauel fhen \Ve
Put another Orcnco fflumt twer
in ildYuille, Illinois, and iti
working gtat, too"'
Bill Valkcr' P'E'
\fldkcr Baker 8c Associates
Efluent Sewer and kcircuhting Grauel Fiber
'Vhen the Vrllage of Ncw Minden, Illinois built an Orenco
effluent sewer with a recirculating gravel filter and began sentl-
ing its monthly reports to EPA, agency officials thoughr somc-
one might be "cooking the books'" Or didnt know how to grab
a good sample. Month.ly BOD and TSS leveis under 3 mg/L:'
Impossible!
So rhe agcncy sent its own peopie to pcrform unannounced rrnd
independcnt tesa. The resulc were even berter! Then the agency
did anorher inspecdon, as a stcP towards statcwide approval ior
Orenco-ryPe filtered collcction q/stems'
The Villagc of New Minden is an lllinois demonsrradon site:
one of four communides selected by the state's 'Rural Action
Association" for insmllation of a cost-effective' alternadve waste-
water sy$cm. This small furming communiry had been plagued
with wastewater problems - nelisus odors and sewage in ir's
ditches - and had had applications on filc with various fi'rnd-
ing agencies for Years.
EngineerBill'W'alker,of\0'dkerBakerBcAssociates'esdmated
rhqcommuniry could save money bv hsralling an Orenco efflu-
ent sewer and recirculating gravel filter instead ofa convenoon-
ai sewer. The advantages of shallowly buried effluent sewer lines
became immediareiy aPParent' when testing revealed limestone
bedrock 8'-12' below rhe surface! 'fugh' then' we realized wed
saved a miilion dollars in excavadon costs"' said W'aiker'
Continued.\ralker, *.W.e rarr dmost all our collection lines ciown
alieys and across fields. til7hen the srate's Rural Do'elopment
Director eune to rown for our dedication, he pulled me aside
and asked "When arc you going to gct this proiect finished?' I
said 'lt is finishcd.' Hc said, 'Bur whcn are you going to rear uP
rhe streea?' He couldn't believe we didnt have to!"
(Continucd on back.)
/-.]'r*"2a3*-ptuG
Ordrco Syrtarns-
lncorporat€d
8oo/3489843
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
i
T
I
I
Installed in January 1998, New Mindent wastewater
system continues to astound cridcs' [n addirion to BOD
andTSS levels below 3.0 mgtL, ammonia nitrogen is
averaging a low, low 0.5 mglL' One part-dme maintenance
person spends less than t hour/monrh on service calls'
while flow meters show that power costs for effluent
collection and disrribudon are averaging about 18
cents/home /monthl
New Mindeni effluent sewer project cost a total of
$1,200,000 and currently serves about 135 households
and three commercial propenies. Residents pay a base
bill of $18.80/month' with a small surchargc for usage in
erccess of 2,000 gallons. New installarions run about
$3,000, not including a connecdon fee of $300'
'The commtrniry is very happy with the way its new
rystem is working," said \7alker.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFICATIONS
Nga Mindcn, Ilhnois Effluent Scuo and Rccircuhting Grauel Fiher- Uing Orenco SYsterru'EquiPment
lrstall.trloa DarE
lanuary 1998
SYsrEril Eil6lrEEr
Walker Baker & Associates, Harrisburg, lllinois
Coirtacrot
Pensoneau Construction, Belleville, lllinois
OtElco DlsrnlauroR
Flo-Systrms, lnc., TroY, lllinois
Toral PnorEct Co3r
$r.zoo,ooo (coltection and treatment)
Oil-SlrE faclLlrlts
138 EDU's, mostlY residentlal
(9 STEP units, 129 STEG unlts)
22 dupler PumP stations
Taxxs
RESIoENTIAL
Mostly 1,ooo 8al concrete tanks wlth effluent
Rlters (Constructed to speclflcatlon)
t40G34&9843
www.orenco,com
CoMMERctAL
1,5oo gal concrete tanks with Slease trap
(Constructed to sPeci[ication)
PUMPs
Collection; r/z Hp (ro-25 8pm typical) turbine
effluent pumPs
Treatment: 3/4 Hp turbine effluent pumps
coLLECflor SYtrEt
Each lot has 1" service lines
TIEATIErr SYsrEm
50' x 100' RECIRcULATING GRAVEL FILTER:
Design florvs - 25,ooo gPd
Av.rage flows - 16,5oo gPd
DeslSn recirc ratio - 5:1
Actual recirc ratlo - 4:1
Design loading 1319 - 5 gal/sq ft/daY
Actual loading 61s - 3 gal/sq ft/daY
Two 12,5oo gal resirculation tanks
Media DePth ' z'
Media effective size - 2.41 mm
Media Cu - r'5
Dt5Po3aL
Recirculating Sravel filter discharges to interrnit'
tent stream
oPE rarloi / [naltlrEtlalcE
0NsrrE FActLlrlEs
One part-time maintenance Petson
4 hr/wk Preventative maintenance
r hr/mo in service calls
Septic tanks monitored YearlY
Expected slud8e removal every 10-12 years on
aven!Se
TPE^rMEilT SYsrEM
One Part'tlme maintenance Person
State of llllnols, class I 0Perator
4 hr/wk
FEEs
$3oo inltlal connection fee
$3,ooo inltlal installation costs
$18.80 month base charge
Small surcharge over z,ooo gal/mo
ErfLuE 1{TIITLUEiT
BOD5
TSS
NH3N
2.1
2.5
o.5
740
47
---,G.-;*tG
OrcncoSYetcma
lncorporated
Changing thc Vay the
'VorA Doa \l'ucuaw AC$SL-3
Rav.1.0,lU!!l
@ orcoco Syrtcruo lnc.
,)
(j
CASE5Tt"3 ffiY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
l
T
Thk acriat uiew shous tbe community of Elhton'
Orryon, with iu 100 raidcnces, ttoftt, restaurantt
and rhoob. Orenco\ high\ efrcicttr recirahting
sandfber is in the lowo ight corner (circhd)'
Av
q,
"The riuo is a big Part of
our liues, so Protecting it it a
pri or i ry. O rrnco\ rc circu la ting
und fbo doet an cxcellcnt
1ob at a cott ue can ffird"'
Linda Higgins
Elkton Ciq'Manager
OrcncoSystcmr.
lncorporated
sooi 348-9843
Elkton, Oregon:
Effluent Sewer Prouides Supeior Tieatment at Lou Cost
ln the late eighties, hdividual onsite septic systems in Elkton'
Oregon - along the beaudfrrl Umpqtra River - were fulin3;'
rhrcatening thc rivcr's warcr qu'liry' In addition thc scptic
systems were limited in capaciry and merchants realizcd they
couldnt ecpand their businesses wirhour making improvements'
In 1989, Orcnco installed a PToSTEPT watenighr effluent
sewer system thar conveys effluent from about 100 onsire set'dc
sysrems - of which ll3 ue graviry (STEG) andZl3 are PunlP
(STEP) - to a 60' x 120' recirculating sand filtcr (RSF)
dcsigred to trcat 30,000 gallons pcr &y' Final disposal of th':
treated effluent is to a sequentially dosed drainfield coruisting
of 11,000 lineal feet, divided into 12 zones'
Effluent quaiiry is ourstanding. BOD and TSS from the
PToSTEP collecdon svstem avemge 130 and 34 mglL' resPec-
rively. After treatment by the RSF, effluenr dosed to the drain-
field averages 6 mglL for bothl
The cost to homeowners is minimal' After an inidal $400
connection charge, homeowners pay a low $20 monthiy fee
that includes system payback and ma'intenance' That's because
maintenance is also minimd, averaging less than an hour per
day for roudne maintenance to the collection system and for
recording daily meter readings for the RSF and dosing PumPs'
\7ith a rotal svstem cost of$897,800, the averege installation
was less than $7,000 per connection. The communiry of Elxton
found a cost-effective, environmentally sound soiution to iu
wastewater treatment needs. And because only rwo-thirds oF the
rystems' capaciry is being used, Orenco's PToSTEP tcchnolory
will servc Elkton iong into the forcsecable furure'
t
t
t
I
I
lxsr LLATron DarE
1989
Toral PnolEcr Cosl
$892,8oo
Ox.SrrE faclL!flEs
r35 E0U!. mostlY residential
6z STEP Unlts, 34 sTEG Unlts
Taxxs
R EstoEilTlAL
r,ooo gal, 1'plece construction' single'compart-
ment concrete iank fitted w/effluent fllters or
screened pumP vaults.
CoMMERctAL
Larget than 1,ooo gal and/or multiple tanks'
PUMPS
r/z Hp (ro gpm typical) eflluent pumps.
CoLLEcflox SYsrEm
Main lines mostty z" diameter, some 3"'
TnEArmErl sYsltf
Recirculatlng gravel fillet discharging to drainfield'
Q (Design) = 3o,ooo gPd
Q (Average) - 17,ooo gpd
Actual RR _ 3.2:1
,:
SUMMARY OF SPECIFICATIONS
Elkton, Orqon Effhcnt Scuter and Recircuhting Sand Fiher
(Jsing Orenco SYstems' EquiPment
z9,5oo gal teclrculalion tank, with four, r Hp
pumPs.
Per DEQ, Media depth = 35", D10 = 3.5 mmi
Cu = 1.8 (Currenl slandards provide for media
deplh of 24 " and medla size of r.z'2.5')
Flow splltter lank divides 2o7o of return flow to
drainfield. During low flows' motorized valve
actuates, Iesultlng in rooTo recirculation'
DlstosaL
3,ooo 8al dosinS lank wlth lhree' Ll2 Ap' 7o
gpm pumps, Each pump doses to 4 valves that
sequeniially direct flow to hydrospliilet with
5 zones each.
rzz (2") laterals wllh 1/8" orifices on 24"
spacing, pla€ed in 12" x 48" trenches.
u,ooo LF drainfield is located within 6 acres.
ETTLUEiT QUAUYY
lnfluent BOO and TSS average r3o and 3l m8/1,
respectively. Emuent averages 6 mg/L for both
(see charl, below).
oPEnarrox / lix xtEiall tE
ONSITE rAclLtrlEs
Alarm calls avelage ).7 lyt. fot fisl 7 yts.
No residential tanks have needed pumping'
ln 11996, a full audlt was pelformed al each
septic tank. Llttle maintenance was requited'
Collecrton svsrera
2 COntract op€tators on-call.
TREATMENT SYSTEM
1 part-time operator; less lhan I hr/day,
including daily meter readinSs (weekly would
be adequate).
Per WPCF permit, emuent analysis performed
quarterly.
RsF distribution laterals flushed annually
(prevenlative maintenance).
furDrxG/fEEs
/10,6 grants, z9olo loan
t4oo connecllon fee
$zolmo/EDu for < 5,ooo BPd flows
Additlonal $q/r.ooo gpd for > 5,ooo 8pd Rows
$gslmo flat fee for 2" commercial meters
New gravity installations cost about $2.ooo
New pump system installations cost about
$l,ooo.
no3 r/E
DATA COMPARING INFLUENT(I) TO EFFLUENT(E)
TS5 r/E ,{Hl | /E
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
AxxUAL AYERAGE BOD I/E
1990
199L
1992
1993
r994
1995
1996
1997
2471,/
tt6 I t .,,
.ltz.5
1].414.1
11412,9
tzzl3.g
9zlz.1
,2al5.5
371'
2514.o
261-
4015.t
:,ol4.1
4o I tt.o
4614.o
j8lt.7
581 1
1111
.14
s6ltt
4718
5oll
44113
4Ll8
1/8
tl tt
- 124
llzo
zl16
tl30
zl zo
tl*
BOD Biochemictl orvSen oemnd TSS Total suspended solids NH3lmmonia l{O3 Nitcte
MONTHLY AVE RAGE FLOW, GPD
25,OOO
2(),ooo
15,OOO
1O,OOO
5,Ooo
o
jdiE!.tI
=E.&.=E-.
AC$SL-1
Rev. Z0' r/99
@ 0lcnco Sytl.mro lnc.
T
rt
I
T
t
I
I
I
The community of Diamond l-ake, in tlorthedst
'lVa$ingron ttatc, taued ia beautiful 800-aot hhe
by rcphcing all it old, kahing sepic tanhs and
inacicquate disposal systents uith watertight tunks
oni o, Orcnco fficnt sctuer system. Diamond
lzhe! wasteuatcr rlttetfl teruet ,nore than 500
bomes, a: well at one of the hrgest
Boy Scout camPt in the country'
"\Verc opaating this system -
uater and seurcr - with jut ttrto
guy. More tban 500 sewet
ct$ton er\ and 600 udter cttt'
tomcrs. lti casy to maintain."
Larrv Gerwood
Diamond Lakc
\Warer & Scwcr Disuict
I
I
I
f>'*.,ft-gtuG
Orcnoo SYstarns"
lncorporated
8oo134E9843
t
I
J
CASESTffiffiY
Diamond Lake, Vashington:
\2-Year Oll. Effluent Settter Requires Linb Mainrcnance
In the early 1970 s, the residents of Diamond l:ke, 'i0'ashington
knew that something had to be done about their wastewater'
According to Bob McGowan, long-time member of rhe
Diamond l:ke ti7'arcr 6c Sewer Commission' "Our lake was
being desroyed by lcaking septic canla and failing drainfields'"
The communiry needed federal funding assisance' Even so,
iA. graviry system was way out ofreason," rccalls l-arry
Garwood, svstem oPcrator. After nearly 15 years of research and
pianning, thc Commission decided on an effluent sewer anci
purchased PToSTEP* pumping systems from Orenco'
Construction b.S* i" 1987. Instaliation went well bur v/as not
easy, since the soil was heavy clay' wifi high groundwater' In
addirion, ebow 25o/o oF the exca'r'ation had to be blasted for the
tanla and minimum 42" -deep collection lines' 'If rhe engineers
had known about the rock, the cost estimates for the gravirl'
scwcr would have been even highcr," says Garwood'
More than a dozen years later, everyone is pleased with the r;ys-
tem, accord.ing to Ganvood and McGowan' All wasrewater and
water system maintenance is handled by iust rwo oPerators'
"The system is casy ro learn and maintain," says Garwood' ''We
dont have many alarm calls. Pump motors never give tu a prob-
Iem, and the lines are performing well." (See *Operation/
Maintenance" summary on ba&.)
Equ"lly as imponant, wastewater servicrs are very cost-efFec'tive'
both for the districr and its cidzens. Crstomers pay $15/monrh for
residendal propenics and $25lmonth for commercial propenies'
Best of all, thcrc's the lake. \Tirhin drree years after Orencoi
effluent sswer was insralled, ir was clear and clean again' "[r
recovered very early on," says Commissioner McGowan'
'Diamond leke is now a showcase." (Continucd on back')
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
T
I
T
T
I
I
lrsraLLATlox oarE
1987
Toral PtotEcr Cosr
$2,95 lzSo (excluding tagoon)
$5,54o per home
ox.srrE FAclLlrlEs
533 EDU's, mostlY residentlal
529 STEP unlts, 4 STEG units
Tataxs
REsroENTtaL
r,ooo gal slngle-compartment concrete tank
wlth effluent fllters or screened pump vaults.
Tanks were tested extensively for watertiSht-
ness and structural integritY.
Con MERCTAL
Multlple 1,ooo gal or 2,ooo 8al tanks.
PUMPS
r/z Hp (8 gpm typical) turblne effluent pumps
SUMMARY OF SPECIFICATIONS
Diamond Lahe, Washington Efflucnt Sewer
Using Orenco Systetru' EquiPment
Cot t tcrtox Svstn
Each lot has r.5' 'z' serulce llnes
6.5+ miles of 3' - 8' maln lines
Effluent quality of collectlon 5ystem (measured
at inlet of first laEoon):
BOO - -17or mg/L (89:9t)
T55 r -4or mg/L (89r9t)
TtElrfErr SYsrEt
3.CELL AERATEO LAGOON:
1 cell is 3/4 acte x ro.5' deep (on average)
z cells are 3.75 acre x 16' deeP
18o,ooo gPd deslgn
Q (summer average) - 68,000 8Pd
Q (winter averaSe) - 45,ooo gPd
37.9 mittion gallons winter stora8e capacity
(on average)
0rt?osaL
4ro,ooo gpd irrigation to 38'acre alfalfa field
(Winter hold; summer irrigate)
oPEr^rroi /llatirExalcf
Entire system (wastewater and water) main'
talned by two full'tlme operators'
About 2 alarm calls petweek (often for customer
power failure).
AveraSe time spent at site for an alarm: zo rrin'
calls typically broken out as follows:
Screen cleanings: 3o
Pumps (cleaning): 3o
Miscellaneous: zo
Control panels: rr
Discharge assemblies: ro
Floats: 5
Service llnes: 2
Pump motols: 1
FEEs
$r5/month residential
$zS/month commercial
j
il{
r. To lagoon'\*-^\
n--,
^.-,;.\,G
Orancosyst rns'
lncorporated
Aanging thc Way thc
WorA Doa Wceuatcr
t40G34&9843
This map shows the efflucnt colkction tyttctn
for the 533 bomes around Diomond Lahc,
in casrcrn Washington. A 1/2 Hp pump
in each JcPtic tanh trafltPor$ wtutcuater
to an aeflfied hgoon, six milet distant,
wirb no lifi statioru rtquired'
ACS-SL-2
Rav. 1.0, 10/93
@ 0ranco Synrmto lllc.
I -- llllill-.:::
a
Site Application
Blue Creek ranch Wastewater June 2001
c)
Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilitiesconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 FacilityPlan or 208 Water Quali$ Management Plan, as tney aiTect water quality? lf you have any furthercomments or questions, please call 320-g333, extension 5272.
1.
DATE RECOMMEND
APPROVAL
RECOMMEND
DISAPPROVAL
NO
COMMENT
SIGNATURE OF
REPRESENTATIVE
'/L X
BI
ZZ
ue LLCl:
l'
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.r
r
t
t
Local Government:
Town of Carbondale
J.
8.
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications process,, andhave posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An inlin""ring Report, as described byregulations, has been prepared and is enclosed.
Applicant Signature:,^", u//,
Applicant Name:
Page 14
(Typed)
7.
Site Application June 2001Blue Creek ranch Wastewater
c)
Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilitiesconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 FacilityPlan or 208 water Quality Management Plan, ai tney aifect water quality? tt you tiave any furthercomments or questions, please call 320-9333, extension 5272.
1.
DATE RECOMMEND
APPROVAL
RECOMMEND
DISAPPROVAL
NO
COMMENT
SIGNATURE OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BI
ZZ
UE LLCl:
ll
!,II
l.
l.
l.
lrr
r
I
Local Government:
Town of Carbondale
s q/qf or
,zkb ye<
7.
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications process,,, andhave posted the site in accordance with the regulations. ,{n Engineering Report, as described byregulations, has been prepared and is enclosed.
Applicant Signature:,^", u//,
Sanitation
Applicant Name:
Page 14
(Typed)
RECEIVEDJUNll2OOl
STATE OF COLOTGDO
Bill Owens, Covernor
,ane E. Norton. Executive Director
Dedicated to protecting and improvingthe health and environment of the people of colorado
4300 cherry creek Dr. s. Laboratory and Radiation Services Division
Denver, Coiorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd'
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928
TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090
Located in Clendale, Colorado
h np //www. c d Ph e. sta te. c o. u s
C.olorado Departnrent
ofPublicHealth
andEnvironment
I0l/.ay 24,2001
Thomas A. Zmcanella, PE
Zancanella and Associates, Inc.
PO Box 1908
1005 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RECEI\TED
JUN 1 3 2001
**E'Sb?*EPH**
Re: Proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP' Garfield County
Dear Mr. Zancanella:
The Colorado Department of public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, has
completed your request for preliminary effluent limits (PELO for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
wastewater treatment pta"t (wwrp). your current proposal is for a wwrP with a hydraulic design
capacity of 0.02 million gallons per day (MGD).
;(1i-..) .. r.- ' , \' .-... !
This proposed facility would discharge into.the Roaring Fork fuver in the Nwl/4 of SE1/4, Section 31,
Township 7 South, d*g" g7 West oith" 6th p.M. in Garfield County. This portion of the Roaring Fork
River is identified as striam segment COUCRFO3, which means the Upper Colorado River Basin,
Roaring Fork River Subbasin, Str""* Segment 3. This stream segment is composed of the'Mainstem
of the ioaring Fork River, including all tributaries, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs from a point
immediately 6elow the confluenc" *itf, Hunter Creek, to the confluence with the Colorado River except
for those tributaries included in Segment I and specific listings in Segments 3a through 10." These
identifications are found in the Clissification and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin
and North Platte River (Planning Region 12).
Effluent limits for specific constituents are based on the type of permit a facility will require after
construction. The Blue Creek Ranch WWTP may be covered by a general permit.
The preliminary effluent limitations were developed for the Blue Creek Ranch WWTP based on effluent
limits establishld in the Regulations for Eftluent Limitations for a WWTP consisting of a mechanical
wastewater treatment pro.".-.r, "r *.il as it e water quality-based effluent limits necessary for protection
of the water quality oith" Roaring Fork River. A PELs evaluation is attached to document the findings
and decisions that were used to derive the PELs in Table l '
Sincerely,4:@Karen Young
Environmental Protection Specialist
Permits Unit, Water Quality Protection Section
Water Qualiff Control Division
ENCLOSURE
cc:L-ocal Health Deparment
Dwain Watson, District Engineer, Grad Junction Office
Tom Bennett, Drhking Water and Wastewater Technical Services
Garfield County File
Proposed BIue Creek
Thomas A. Zancanella,
May 24,2001
Page2
Ranch WWTP
PE
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (303) 692-3614.
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Eflluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
Figure 1
Study Area
LEGEND
I Discharges to water
I Superfund sitesI Hazardous wasteI Toxic releases
I Air releasesr oth"rtr Multipler\/ StreetsI Water BodiesE Counties
Source: EPA's Enviromapper,
8.2 mi across
Information used in this ,Nsessment includes data gathered from the U. S. Geological Survey
(USGS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Riverwatch, andtheWQCD. The data
used in the assessment consist of the best information available at the time of preparation of this
PELs package.
II. Water Quality
The proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP will discharge to the Water Body Identification (WBID)
stream segment COUCRF03, which meilns the Upper Colorado River Basin, Roaring Fork River
Subbasin, Stream Segment 3. This segment is composed of the "Mainstem of the Roaring Fork
River, including all tributaries, wetlands, lakes and reservoirs from a point immediately below the
confluence with Hunter Creek, to the confluence with the Colorado River except for those tributaries
included in Segment I and specific listings in Segments 3a through 10." Stream segment
PELs Page 2 of l5 Draft
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
COUCRFO3 is classified for Cold Water Aquatic Life Class l, Class I Recreaction, Agriculture, and
Water Supply.
Numeric standards are developed on a basin-specific basis and are adopted for particular stream
segments by the Water Quality Control Commission. To simplify the listing ofthe segment-specific
standards, many ofthe aquatic life standards are contained in a table at the beginning ofeach chapter
of the regulations. The standards in Table 2havebeen assigned to stream segment COUCRF03 in
accordance with the Classification and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado River Basin and
North Platte River (Planning Region 12).
Standards for metals are generally shown in the regulations as Table Value Standards (TVS), and
these often must be derived from equations that depend on the receiving stream hardness or species
Table 2
In-stream Standards for Stream Segment COUCRF03
Drssolved O)qFgen (DO): 7 rngll, rrunrmum
pH=6.5-9su
t ecal uohtorln: z(ru colonles/ I w ml
Un-tonrzed arnmonla acute :'M
Un-ronrzed amronla chronlc :0.02 mg/l
uhlonne acute : u.019 mg/l
unlonne chronlc: u.ul I mg/l
f ree Cyanrde acute : 0.005 mg/l
Sultrde chronrc :0.U)2 mg/l
lroron chronlc :0.'/5 mg/l
Nrtnte :0.05 mg/l
Nitrate : l0 mg/l
uhlonde chronlc : 25u mgl I
Sultate chronrc :25O mg/
Iotal Recoverable Arsenic acute : 50 ug/l
Drssolved Cadmium acute fbr trout and Dissolved Cadmium chronic : TVS
l otal Recoverable 'l'nvalent Chromum acute = 50 ug/l
Lrlssolved tlexavalent Chrorruum acute and chrontc ='l VS
L,rssolved Uopper acute and chronlc :'l VS
urssolved lron chrontc = J(J() ug/l
I'otal Recoverable lron chronrc : lUX) ug/l
L,lssolved lf,ad acute and chronrc :'l VS
Lrlssolved Manganese chronlc : 50 ug/l
I otal Mercury chronlc = u.ul ug/l
Drssolved Nrckel acute and chronrc = I VS
Dtssolved Selenium acute and chronic : TVS
Drssolved Srlver acute and Dissolved Silver chronic for trout = TVS
Drssolved Zrnc acute and chronic : TVS
PELs Page 3 of 15 Draft
Table 3
Site-Specific Water Quality Standards for the Proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP
Based on the Table Value Standards Contained in the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation 33
Calculated Using the Following Vahre for Har<ness as CaCO3: | 199!mg/l
In-Stream llater
Quality Standard Formula Used
Cadmiurn, Dissolved
Troul 8.5 ug/l , (l .l 28(ln(hardness))-3.E2.E )
Chronic 1.9 ngfi e (0.7 E5Z(ln(har(,,ness) )- 5/49 u )
Hexavalent Chromfurrt
Dissolved
Acute l6 ugll Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Chronic tl ugn Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Copper, Dissolved Acute 34 ryA e (u.v42l(ln(naroness))- I .r+oJ..,
Chronic 2t ugA e (0.E545(ln(hardness))- 1.465)
Lead, Dissolved Acute 291 ugA e (l .6 l4u(ln(hardness))-z.u /Jo)
Chronb 10 ugA g (1.4 I 7(ln(haroness))-). t o /)
Nickel, Dissohed Acute 1561 ugn e (u.'/ o(ln(hardness))+J.J J )
Chronic l6l ugll e (0.76(ln(hardness))+l .uo)
Seleniurru Dissohed Acute 20 ugl Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Chronic 5.0 ngll Numeric standards provided, formula not applicable
Silver, Dissolved Acute 6.6 ,tgl g (1. /z(ln(haronessr)- /.2 I )
Trout 0.25 ugl g ( l. /z(ln(naroness)r- I u.) l,
Zinc, Dissotved
Acute 210 ugn e (0.E47 3(ln(hardness))+u.Bou4 )
Chronic 190 ugA e (0.847 J(ln(nardness))+u. / 6 I 4)
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
to as lE3, represents the one-day low flow recurring in a three-year interval. The chronic low flow,
30E3, represents the 30-day average low flow recurring in a three-year interval.
Low Flow Analvsis
To determine the low flows available to the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP, a flow gage
measurement immediately upstream of the proposed facility should be used. There are, however, no
gage stations within 15 miles upstream or downstream of the proposed facility.
Low flows were therefore determined using a comprehensive analysis of the flow balance of the
Roaring Fork River performed by the WQCD in 1998. As part of this analysis, the WQCD obtained
Roaring Fork River daily flow data from several USGS gage stations and then performed a flow
balance throughout the basin to determine low flows at multiple discharge points and tributary
PELs Page 5 of l5 Draft
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
confluences. Based on this analysis, the estimated low flows for the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
WWTP are presented in Table 5.
Table 4
Ambient Water Quality for the Proposed BIue Creek Ranch WWTP
Nam,ber
'.'I5t
Percentile Percentile Notes
I enp (-C)44 l.v 6 t2 6.4 20
DO (mg/l)36 8.5 l0 IU 7
pH (su)36 8.3 E.6 9 u.o 6.5-9
iec al uolllorm (r/ l(^,
rnl)18 I I 3 2 200 ,,
Hardness (mg/l
CaCOr)45 139 202 246 199 NA 1
As, Dls (ug/l,,25 0 0 0 0.080 NA 3
Cd, Drs (ug/l)33 0 0 0 U 2
[.u, Drs (ug/l)33 0 0 U 0.052 2l
Fe, D$ (ug/l)6 t4 l5 29 'r)300
Fe, Trec (ug/l)33 32 46 142 139 1000
Pb, Dis (ug/l)33 0 0 0 0.097 10 3
Mn, Lrls (ug/l)3J 0 0 0.4E U.OJ )u 3
Hg, Tot (ug/l)l9 ND ND ND NI)0.01 4
Se, Lrrs (ug/l)27 0 U U 0.29
Ag, Dts (ug/l)2E NT)NT)ND ND o.25 4
zn, Lrls (ug/l)33 U 0 2t l0 t90 3
B,Dis (mg/l)9 0 0 0 0 250 3
Sultate (mg/l)33 44 93 l3u 92 250 3
P, Tot (mg/l)t4 0.030 u.04 0.061 0.04E NA
Nitrate+Nftnte (mg/l)JJ 0 0 o.z5 0.1 NA
TISI (mg/l)8 0 0 0 0 NA 3
NH3,Tot (mg/l)33 0 0 0 0.00091 NA 3
NHr, Unionized (mg/l)28 0.003 0.006 0.013 0.0096 0.02
r ss (mg/r)33 0 0 ).6 NA
NOfe l: uala wgfe aaKcn rrorn ll'lvgl watull liaIIlpllllE,
upstream of the propsed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP.
JCalluII lz \l-l I DlluEc rll Dal4ll., ru9dlcu ePPrvArrrraler, , lr
T his data covers the period of record of I 0/95 through 2/00.
Nole-24'fhe?afculated mean is the geometric mean and the stream standard rs tn unrts ol #/IUU ml. Note that lor
summarization purposes, the vatue of one was used where there was no detectable amount because the geometric mean of one is
equal to zero.
Notc J: When sample results were non-oetect, the value oI zero was useo ln accoroance wrrn Ine LU wvt-Lrs s
approach for summarization and averaging purposes.
IloIt7[:-fhe noted parameters were lbund at less than detectable levels. I he detectron levels, how€ver, were greater Inan tne
in-streamstandards. InaccordancewithWQCDprocedures,ambientwaterqualityisnotdeterminedusingnon-detectdata
when detection levels are greater than the in-stream standards.
PELs Page 6 of 15 Draft
Pprrentile I Men
t2
l.>
J
J
I 3
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
In the months of January, June, July, and October, the acute low flow exceeded the chronic low flow.
In accordance with WQCD standard procedures, the acute low flow was set equal to the chronic low
flow for these months.
IV. Technical Analysis
Low flows and in-stream background data evaluated in sections II and III are ultimately used to
determine the assimilative capacity of the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
W-WTP for pollutants of concern. For all parameters except ammonia, it is the WQCD's approach to
conduct a technical analysis of stream assimilation capacity using the lowest of the monthly low
flows (referred to as the annual low flow) as calculated in the low flow analysis. For ammonia" it is
the standard procedure of the WQCD to determine assimilative capacities for each month using the
monthly low flows calculated in the low flow analysis, as the regulations allow the use of seasonal
flows when establishing assimilative capacities.
The WQCD's standard analysis consists of steady-state, mass-balance calculations for most
pollutants and modeling for pollutants such as ammonia. The mass-balance equation is used by the
WQCD to calculate the maximum allowable concentration ofpollutants in the effluent, and accounts
for the upstream concentration of a pollutant, critical low flow (minimal dilution), effluent flow and
the water quality standard. The mass-balance equation is expressed as:
t, MtQt-MrQr
aftz-
Qz
Q,: Upstream low flow (183 or 3083)
Qr: Average daily effluent flow (design capacity)
Qr: Downstream flow (Q, + Qr)
Mr = In-stream background pollutant concentrations
Mr: Calculated maximum allowable effluent pollutant concentration
Mr:Maximum allowable in-stream pollutant concentration (water quality standards)
Table 5
Low Flows for the Roaring Fork River at the Proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP
Low.,'Flow.
" Gl")
.::;;:i i '
:':Iiin:'::::May Jun Jul Aug
,1,
sep Oct
IE,J
A cute
159 239 201 210 189 159 365 333 282 235 290 284 265
JUL,J
Chronic
188 239 239 239 227 188 365 333 296 307 290 301 265
PELs Page 7 of l5 Draft
..Apr
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
For non-conservative parameters and ammonia, the mass-balance equation is not as applicable and
thus other approaches are considered where appropriate. Note that conservative pollutants are
pollutants that are modeled as if mass is conserved and there is no degradation, whereas non-
conservative pollutants degrade and sometimes are created within a receiving stream depending on
stream conditions. A more detailed discussion of the technical analysis for these parameters is
provided in the pages that follow.
Pollutants of Concern
The following pollutants were identified by the WQCD as pollutants of concern for this facility:
o BODs
o TSS
o Percent removal
o Oil and Grease
.pH
oDO
o Fecal Coliform
o Total Residual Chlorine
o Ammonia.
There are no in-stream water quality standards for BOD', TSS, percent removal, and oil and grease
for the Roaring Fork River. Thus, assimilative capacities were not determined for these parameters
in this section and an antidegradation review for these parameters was not conducted in Section V.
However, the evaluation of applicable limitations for these pollutants can be found in Section VI,
Regulatory Analysis.
During assessment ofthe facility, nearby facilities, and receiving stream water quality, no additional
parameters were identified as pollutants of concern. It should be noted that cyanide and metals are
not evaluated as part of PELs development because it is the WQCD's approach to ensure control of
cyanide and metals through a pretreatment program, if necessary, versus through wastewater
treatment.
.-. \. !
Blud,Creek Ranch WWTP: The proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP will be located near the town
otI4U!&Lq in the Southwestern-most corner of Garfield County, specifically, the NW quarter ofthe
SE quarter of Section 31, Township 7 South, Range 87 West of the 6'h P.M. The proposed design
capacity of the facility is 0.02 MGD (0.031 cfs). The proposed wastewater treatment is a mechanical
wastewater treatment process. The technical analyses that follow include assessments of the
assimilative capacity based on this proposed design capacity.
Nearby Sources
An assessment of nearby facilities based on EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) database found
5l dischargers in the Garfield County area. Because of its proximity to Eagle and Pitkin Counties
(within five miles upstream) facilities in these counties were assessed also. Several ofthe facilities
conducted construction related operations and thus had no pollutants of concem in common with
PELs Page 8 of 15 Draft
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP. Other facilities discharged to different watersheds or were
located more than twenty miles from the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP and thus were not
considered to be of relevance to this analysis.
The nearest dischargers were:
The Mid-Valley Metropolitan District WWTP (COG584007), located 4 miles upstream
near the town of El Jebel, discharges directly into the Roaring Fork River. A few miles
farther upstream the Basalt Sanitation District WWTP (CO0021491), which services the
town of Basalt, also discharges to the Roaring Fork River.
The Ranch at Roaring Forks (COG584051) discharges to the Roaring Fork River
approximately two miles downstream and the Town of Carbondale WWTP
(COG584050) discharges four miles downstream of the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
WWTP.
The ambient water quality background concentrations used in the mass-balance equation account for
pollutants of concern contributed by upstream sources, and thus it was not necessary to model
upstream dischargers together with the Blue Creek Ranch WWTP when determining available
assimilative capacities in the Roaring Fork River. Because of the significant dilution available
relative to the size of the dischargers of concern, downstream dischargers were not found to affect
the assimilative capacity calculations for the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek
Ranch WWTP.
Based on available information, there is no indication that non-point sources were a significant
source of pollutants of concem. Thus, non-point sources were not considered in this assessment.
BOD' TSS. and Percent Removal: There are no in-stream water quality standards forBODr, TSS,
and percent removal for the Roaring Fork River. Thus, assimilative capacities for these parameters
were not calculated.
Oil and Grease: There are no in-stream water quality standards for total oil and greise for the
Roaring Fork River. Thus, assimilative capacities for total oil and grease were not calculated.
pH: The pH of a stream measures the intensity of the acidity or alkalinity of the stream. When pH
falls outside of the neutral range, it can be harmful to aquatic life. To determine assimilative
capacities of a stream for pH, the buffering capacity of the receiving stream and its interaction with
the discharge contributions would need to be assessed in a complex evaluation.
An evaluation of pH data available for the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
WWTP found that the 15s pelqgntile value was well above the minimum in-stream water quality
standard and the 8S* p Jfr6am water quality standard.
Because only limited data are available and because ambient water quality data indicate that no
further conkols are needed to meet in-stream pH standards, a complex evaluation ofthe assimilative
capacity for pH is not warranted for this facility.
PELs Page 9 of 15 Draft
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
DO: The availability of dissolved oxygen in receiving streams is critical for aquatic life.
Decomposition of organic matter and nitrification within receiving streams are generally the causes
of depletion of DO in receiving waters.
For a non-conservative parameter like DO, a simple mass balance cannot be used to determine
assimilative capacity. Instead, DO background, stream flow, 5-daybiochemical oxygen demand and
ammonia loading, stream dimensions, temperature, and estimates of effluent DO may be
incorporated into models such as the Streeter-Phelps DO model or STREAMDO to simulate the
impact of the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP discharge.
An evaluation of DO data available for the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek Ranch
WWTP found that the 156 percentile value was well above the minimum in-stream water quality
standard. Because only limited data are available and because ambient water quality data indicate
that no further controls are needed to meet in-stream standards for DO, modeling was not conducted
as part of this evaluation and no further discussion of DO is provided.
Chlorine: The mass-balance equation was used to determine the assimilative capacity for chlorine.
There are no point sources discharging total residual chlorine within one mile of the proposed BIue
Creek Ranch WWTP. Because chlorine is rapidly oxidized, in-stream levels ofresidual chlorine are
detected only for a short distance below a source. Ambient chlorine was therefore assumed to be
zeto.
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section fV, the acute and chronic low
flows set out in Section III, the chlorine background concentration of zero as discussed above, and
the in-stream standards for chlorine shown in Section II, assimilative capacities for chlorine were
calculated. The data used and the resulting calculations ofthe allowable discharge concenkation, Mr,
are also set forth below.
Parameter Q r kf')Q z (cfs)Q t Gfs)M 1 fug/l)M j (ug/l)M, (ug/l)
Acute CNorine 159 0.031 I )Y.UJ I 0 l9 97,471
Chronic Chlorine 188 0.u31 l EU.03 r 0 661721
Fecal Coliform: There are no point sources discharging fecal coliform within one mile of the
proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP. Thus fecal coliform assimilative capacities were evaluated
separately.
It is the standard approach of the WQCD to perform a mass-balance check to determine if fecal
coliform standards are exceeded. And, as is standard WQCD procedure, the checks are only
conducted on the chronic low flows as set out in Section III. Using the mass-balance equation
provided in the beginning of Section IV, the background concentration for fecal coliform contained
in Section II, and the in-stream standards for fecal coliform shown in Section II, checks for fecal
PELs Page l0 ofl5 Draft
II
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
coliform were conducted. The data used and the resulting calculations of the allowable discharge
concentration, Mr, are also set forth below.
Parameter Q t kf')Q z kf')Q t kfs)M t G/100
ml)
M 3 (#/r00
ml)
M 2 (#/100
ml)
[,ecal Colrtorm 188 0.031 I UU.UJ I 2 200 l rzaary'/4
Ammonia: Ammonia is present in the aqueous environment in both ionized and un-ionized forms.
It is the un-ionized form which is toxic and which is addressed by water quality standards. The
proportion of total ammonia present in un-ionized form in the receiving stream is a function of the
upstream and effluent ammonia concentrations, and the pH and temperature ofthe receiving stream
and of the effluent, combined.
The Colorado Ammonia Model (CAM) is a software progmm designed to project the downstream
effects of ammonia and the ammonia assimilative capacities available to each dischargerbased on
upstream water quality and effluent discharges. To develop data for the CAM, an in-stream water
quality study must be conducted of the upstream receiving water conditions, particularly the pH and
corresponding temperature, over a period of at least one year.
There were no data in the Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTP that
could be used as adequate input data for the CAM. Therefore, the WQCD standard procedure is to
rely on default values for the allowable chronic concentrations of in-stream total ammoni4 which are
provided in the Colorado Total Maximum Daily Load and Wasteload Allocation Guidance and the
CDPS Summary of Rationale General Permitfor Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facililies that
Discharge to Receiving V[aters with a Chronic Low Flow: Design Flow Ratio of 100:1 or Greater.
Note that acute values are not provided in these sources and thus are not evaluated as part of this
assessment.
Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section fV, the acute and chronic low
flows set out in Section III, the mean ammonia background concentration shown in Section II, and
the in-stream standards found in the Colorado Total Maximum Daily Load and Wasteload Allocation
Guidance and the CDPS Summary of Rationale General Permitfor Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Facilities that Discharge to Receiving ll/aters with a Chronic Low Flow: Design Flow Ratio of
1 00: I or Greater for Mr, assimilative capacities for chronic total ammonia were calculated. The data
used and the resulting calculations of the allowable discharge concentration, Mr, are contained in
Table 6.
V. Antidegradation Review
As set out in The Basic Standards and Methodologies of Surfoce Water, Section 31.8(2)(b), an
antidegradation analysis is required except in cases where the receiving water is designated as "Use
Protected." Note that "Use Protected" waters are waters "that the Commission has determined do
PELs Page 1l of15 Draft
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
not warrant the special protection provided by the outstanding waters designation or the
antidegradation review process" as set out in Section 31 .8(2Xb). The antidegradation section of the
regulation became effective in December 2000, and therefore antidegradaiion considerations are
applicable to the proposed Blue creek Ranch wwrp permit issuance.
According to the Classification and Numeric Standards for Upper Colorado fuver Basin and NorthPlatte fuver (Planning Region l2), stream segment COUCRF03 is Undesignated. Thus, an
antidegradation review is required for this segment if new or increased impacts are found to occur.
The ratio of the low flow of the Roaring Fork River to the design flow of the proposed Blue Creek
Ranch WWTP is 6065:1. Section 31.8 (3)(c) specifies that the discharge ofpoilutants should notbe
considered to result in significant degradation ofthe reviewable watersif the ratio ofthe low flow ofthe receiving water to the facility flow is greaterthan 100:1. Thus, condition 31.g(3)(c) of theregulations is met and no further antidegradation evaluation is necessary.
VI. Regulatory Analysis
Regulation 62,the Regulationsfor Eflluent Limitations, includes effluent limitations that apply to all
discharges of wastewater to State waters, with the exception of storm water and agriculturat returnflows. These regulations are applicable to the proposed Blue Creek Ranch WWTp discharge. Table
7 contains a summary of these limitations.
Tabte 6
Monthly Assimilative capacities for Ammonia on the Roaring Fork River
at the Blue Creek Ranch WWTP
NHr, Tot (mgll) Jan
@@
V t Gts)':':Q1::,:(CJS)'Q' t Q7s1'::!:il'iit:i;:iia
0.70
0.60
0/0
5,390
4,619
3rTn
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Apr 227 U.U3I 22 t.Ust U.UUU9I 0.40 2,923
NH3, Tot (mg/l) May rr8 0.03I l EE.03l 0.00091 0.30 1,914
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Jun 365 u.031 365.U31 U.UUU9I 0.30 3,522
NH3, Tot (mg/l) Jul 333 U.U3I JJJ.UJ I U.UUU9I 0.30 3,213
NHr, Tot (mdD AW 296 0.031 296.O31 u.00091 0.30 2,956
NH3, Tot (mgA) Sep 307 OTT1 307.0T1 0.00091 0.30 2,962
NH3, Tot (mgA) Oct 290 U.U3I 290.031 0.00091 0.30 2,799
NHr, Tot (mgll) Nov 301 0.031 301 .031 0.00091 0.30 2,904
NHr, Tot (mgll) Dec 265 U.U3I zo5.u3l 0.00091 0.s0 4,267
PELs Page 12 ofl5 Draft
:, ::, ,!l,f ,,,,,,.,
239.U3t 0.00091
239.031 0.00091
239.O31 0.00091
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP Preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County
In addition to these regulations, the State has developed the Procedure for Selection of Fecal
Coltform Limitations Permit Conditions that specifies a 3O-day average limit of 6,000 colonies per
100 ml and a 7-day average limit of 12,000 colonies per 100 ml when the ratio of the receiving
stream flow to design flow is greater than ten to one.
Page 13 ofl5 DraftPELs
Blue Creek Ranch WWTP preliminary EfI1uent Limits PEl-Garfield County
Note that the TSS limitations shown above vary based on the type ofwastewater teatnent processesused at the facility. The Regulations for Effluent Limitations waive the g5 percent removalrequirements for TSS where waste stabilization poros, both aerated and non-aerated, are used as theprincipal process for treating domestic wastes.
VIf. Preliminary Effluent Limits
The regulations require the use of the most stringent effluent limit forpermit limitations. Thus, thePELs reflected in Tabre g include the most stringent of the followingio Water quality-based effluent limits * dir.r.r.d in the technical analysis contained inSection [Vo ADBELs as discussed in the antidegradation review provided in Section Vo Effluent limits prescribed by the regulations based on the regulatory analysis provided inSection VI.
Table 7
fic Limitations for the Discharge of Wastes
TSS, mechanical plant
110 mg/l
TSS, non-aeraGdligoon
BOD' Percent Remo\ral
Total Residual ehlorine
q.0f.0 su rangG
:ra :arYt{r}ff *I J:ItS.Iot
BOD, (mgil)
BOD, (percent removal)
%averase't ?o/?n-'l^-TSS (mgn)
TSS (percentiernovaf
-
12,00
Oilq,d Grease (mEn,
pH (s.u.)
FecalC@
Total Residual eEiorirre@m
PELs Page 14ofl5 Draft
Blue Creek Ranch llylp preliminary Effluent Limits PEl-Garfield County,,1::::::*i,*,j:!:":::^f{I:::,
9:t,fo,: Limitations permit Conditionsspecines that the 7_day average limit must be calculated as two times the 30-day average limit.
Note that limitations for ammonia w-ere not necessary for this facility because the assimilativecapacity of the receiving water, as discussed in Seciion IV, is large enough to establish totalammonia effluent concentrations for all months at n mil. Because treated sanitary sewage effluentis not expected to have a total ammonia concentration greater than 30 mg/I, no additional allocationswere determined as per WeCD procedure.
VI[. References
{i":::#_?;;:rr*,*um Daity Load and wastetoad Ailocation Guidance, cDpHE, weCD,
Classification and Numeric standards for (Jpper colorado River Basin and North platte River(Planning Region I2), Reguration No. -rs, coprrE, wecc, November 30, 1999.
ffiij#:1 {,r;{;;: and Methodotogies for surface water, Regutation i,r, cDpHE, wecc,
'r:;Z**"for selection of Fecal cohfurm Limitations permit conditions,cDpHE, wecD,
Regulationsfor Eftluent Limitations, Reguration 62,cDpHE, wecc, November 9, 199g.
CDPS summary of Rationale General Permitfor Domestic lvastewater Treatment Facilities thatDischarge to Receiving waters with a chronic Low Froi:Design Flow Ratio of 100:I orGreater, CDpS permit COG_5,4000, Statewide,CDpHE, Sil.#;; ;;:;;;.
PELs
-
Page l5 of t5 Draft